Hi Randy,
Glad to have your input. You write,
"ID is not Creationism. It's just not. You can't read Dembski's "The Design Revolution" and get creationism out of it. Move past that argument, already!"

You are wrong. It frustrates me to enter the same argument here that I have with parents at conferences, but here goes:

If you trace the history of the ID movement, you will find that its advocates are the creationists of 20 years ago. Please, I implore you, watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

In Behe's testimony, he freely admits that ID is an "scientific" as astrology.
There is no evidence that beings were "intelligently designed."
Consider:
1. Over 99% of all living beings on earth are now extinct.
2. Over 1/3, if not more, of all peer-reviewed articles in biological journals address the mechanisms of evolution.
3. Every piece of evidence that has ever been found has supported biological evolution.
4. No piece of evidence that has ever been found supports anything other than biological evolution.

Here's more from the lit review of my dissertation I referred to in an earlier post:

The term “intelligent design” (ID) is often erroneously used in conjunction with theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism. Intelligent design is not part of Scott’s
spectrum of creationism, as ID resembles a political movement more than a belief system (Williams, 2006 ). Intelligent design is addressed here for 1) it’s frequent mislabel for “theistic evolution” and 2) its relationship to the Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School Board case in 2005.
The Kitzmiller case is the most high-profile case surrounding the inclusion of creationist curriculum into public schools since the John Scopes trial in 1926 (Forrest, 2005 ). The case directly addressed public policy regarding science instruction.
Intelligent design incorporates some of the creationist viewpoints, but it is not in itself a belief, but rather a movement based on belief. Intelligent design (ID) is the result of advocacy of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture, a political action group whose aim is to implement creationism into school curriculum (Shermer, 2006). Intelligent design is embraced in varying degrees by both NE creationists and OE creationists, because of its relative success in implementing curriculum into America’s public schools (Forrest, 2005 ).
The crux of the current intelligent design argument lies in the publication of Michael Behe’s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996) and William Dembski’s No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (2002). A simplified summary of Behe’s and Dembski’s argument lies in “irreducible complexity,” or the idea that there are organisms, or parts of organisms that are too complex to not be “intelligently” designed (Behe, 1996) (Dembski, 2002).
The concepts behind “intelligent design” began with the publication of William Paley’s Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity in 1802 (C. Smith & Sullivan, 2007). Paley argues that the universe, like a watch, is “ordered.” Paley extends his “watch analogy” to the idea of a “watchmaker” because, reasons Paley, the universe is so ordered that it require a designer to construct it (Paley, 1802).
Hooykas (1972), and many others, preceded Behe and Dembski in noting these common “designs” found within nature, and cite this as an example of “supernatural” evidence. Hooykas included evidence from ancient Greek philosophers to back his argument that God and Nature are intertwined. He argued that the universe must be a machine model which is made and fabricated by an omnipotent being (Hooykas, 1972).
As of this writing, there has been one peer-reviewed article endorsing intelligent design, titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.” The author, Stephen Myer, was a senior fellow at the intelligent design think-tank Discovery Institute and professor at Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University. The review of the article was highly contested by the scientific community(Meyer, 2004). Soon after publication, a statement was issued by the publisher of the journal in which the article appeared, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article was quickly retracted by the journal. In the retraction, the publisher noted that the peer-review was completed by only one person, Richard Sternberg, an associate of Meyers. The Society also stipulated that ID holds no credible scientific evidence (D. Smith, 2005).

It is no coincidence that the writers of
Of Pandas and People are the same writers of a very similar textbook called Creation Biology.

Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. (R. Dawkins.)