"Any time someone tells you about something that happened in the past, you have to either BELIEVE that or not."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
When I use the word "believe," it's a concession to the evidence, which is strong enough to convince me. I try not to use it too much. I believe that the laws of physics were the same millions (and billions) of years ago because all the observable evidence of the universe points to the laws of physics being static, up until a few picoseconds after the initial event (beyond that, without data, I don't speculate. You may place any creators you wish within that box, but be prepared to be questioned about evidence). When someone says that they believe in ID, it (generally) means that they believe it in spite of the strong evidence suggesting that natural selection occurs, or believe it due to an erroneous or incomplete knowledge of the processes involved. Behe's irreducible complexity has already been discredited, for instance, yet the argument is commonly used to support the idea of ID as a scientific theory.
The statement that all evidence from the past must be believed because it cannot be demonstrated is argumentative twaddle. Do you, then, believe that photographs, film, etc. are not really recordings of the past? How about physical measurements of blue shift, or argon-potassium dating? Do you believe that recorded evidence that says that experiments done to determine gravitation, velocity, etc. will end with different results than those previously recorded? I do not succumb to belief, I acknowledge evidence. When and if there is positive, reproducable, experimental evidence of ID, I will acknowledge it as well.