As usual (on this subject, that is), I agree with John Derbyshire:

Malraux (I think it was) said that there are two reasons to be a socialist: You may love the poor, or you may hate the rich. There are similarly two reasons to get worked up about I.D.: You may love science, or you may hate religion.

My entire and sole motivation in writing against I.D. has been love of, and reverence for, science, and indignation that people should claim a place for their theory at science's table when they have done no science whatsoever to back it up, and plainly have no intention of doing any, and when their fundamental premises are not merely unscientific, but willfully anti-scientific.

I presume he is speaking of "Science" as a pure concept, since in practice science in the west has become less a thing of objective thought and logical proof and more a malible socio-political tool. It's been bought and paid for by whichever power block has their hands on the levers and now the literal religionists are just looking for their turn at the wheel.