As an X-religious person (who is now ~agnostic), I have been on both sides of this argument. I believe that it is true that ID is an attempt on the part of creationists to reconcile the evidence for evolution with their beliefs. According to my understanding of ID (And I haven't read the official declaration), It is a way to loosely quote evolution/big bang and tag on "and god created/started it all" on the end.

The fact is that when one has this kind of belief (creationism) one feels that one has no choice but to believe it. Therefore one must come up with "explanations" to make the belief fit with the new evidence that people have discovered through science - or to ignore the science completely.

The funny thing about it is that science has enabled us to do so many things - like to develop cell phones, empegs, and modern medicine. Most christians believe in those things. But when science starts to encroach on the sacred cow, then the tendancy is to discredit it or ignore it.

It is very difficult for a religious person to use science to challenge the validity of his own religious beliefs because the the person will always hold the religion as a higher light. The religious person would have to be willing to accept the premise that his religious beliefs could be flawed by what he would discover. That is the wall that science cannot break through because the person will not let it in.

Belief is a curious thing, it can inspire or it can hinder.