Nice post - so true, a classic case of double standards re: randomness as compared to invoking a creator. ID makes no profession as to the nature of the intelligence - it is humble in objective ... simply to determine whether a system is the product of natural law/chance, or intelligence. This is not a dichotomy, but rather a continuum. The contention of Dembski and the like is that the greater the spcification of the system, and its complexity, especially when no known natural laws produce this arrangement, the more confident we can be in proclamation of that system being the result of an intelligence. Clearly science cannot reveal the nature of the creator, yet as with forensic science, we can measure and study the effect of his/her/its decisions (just as forensics can't establish the motive or appearance of a gunman, but can establish the trajectory of the bullet once fired). The fact that so many people are up in arms over this issue reveals the primary concern is not with science, but rather with authority and reputation - it's a power struggle, and one ideologically driven. Lay both theories out on the table, exclude the ad hominem attacks and name-calling, cut away layers of pride in credentials, and I think all will find that it is only the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism that places a creator and science at loggerheads.