Of course. Science forces one to take a position and defend it. The so-called "intelligent design" movement is political in nature, it is not scientific. ID is such a big tent, that it is not useful to science. It cannot take a stand. It must be purposely vague, because if it weren't a big tent the various theologies that oppose evolutionary theory would not be able to unite beneath it. Various supporters of creationism are far more divergent in their beliefs than mainstream scientists. Young earth creationism cannot be reconciled with old earth creationism which cannot be reconciled with intelligently designed common descent. ID really says nothing. It is a framework constructed in such a way as to be acceptable to all. It can't say anything, because if it did it would cease to be a unifying glue among anti-evolutionists. All ID says is that somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution.
I think that the last sentence of your post #129, is one of the best, and truest definitions of ID I have ever seen or heard, or read anywhere....that is...'All ID says is that somewhere, some time ago, something happened, but whatever it was that happened wasn't evolution.'
Bravo, for that most excellent observation...