I thought it would be helpful to define the main idea behind ID theory.  Nancy Pearcey explains it simply and clearly:

Critics say the concept of design does not belong in science.  They argue that it is a "science-stopper" that puts an end to scientific investigation.  The head of an evolution advocacy group recently told CNN that design theory is "not a very good science, because it's basically giving up and saying:  We can't explain this; therefore, God did it."

But that accusation is based on a misunderstanding.  The process of detecting design is thoroughly empirical.  In fact, it is already an important element in several areas of science….

Today astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked out extensive criteria for recognizing when a radio signal is an encoded message and when it is just a natural phenomenon, like a pulsar.  In other words, they have developed criteria for distinguishing between products of design and products of natural causes.

The same distinction is made in several other fields:  Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes.  Archeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion.  Insurance companies….Cryptologists….[etc.]

It should be possible to formalize the thinking process used in all these examples, which is exactly what design theory does.  Its central tenet is that the characteristic marks of design can be empirically detected.  As the title of one book puts it, in nature we can uncover Signs of Intelligence.  [Total Truth, pp. 181-182, highlighted emphasis mine]

In other words, ID scientists aren't just postulating a God to explain what they can't understand; it's not merely an ad hoc explanation.  Intelligent design is the best explanation for the scientific facts based on our knowledge of the natural world and intelligent agents. 

Scientists who believe in naturalism understandably don't want to "give up" on finding an explanation that fits their philosophy.  However, we ought to recognize that when they say ID means "giving up" on finding answers, they're really just asserting that the true answer will be found within a naturalistic framework--but that is the very thing in question and cannot merely be asserted.  Isn't it possible that their commitment to not "give up"--which they consider noble--is actually foolish, and that their dogmatic refusal to consider ID only means they'll be searching forever for a naturalistic answer that doesn't exist?

Ought we to dismiss the work of apologists simply because they're defending their particular worldviews?  In an interesting discussion that ensued in the comments for my recent post on apologists, a reader made this charge:

Whereas the rationally-minded individual arrives at a tentative conclusion through argument and logic, the apologist already knows the conclusion, and his task is to fashion argument in support of it. As you can probably discern, the apologist is not held in very high regard outside the theology or belief he defends, and his work is regarded warily. 

The problem with this statement about apologists is that it applies to everybody--especially scientists.  How does any scientist--naturalist or theist--decide how to direct his research?  He looks where he thinks discoveries are most likely to be found based on his view of the nature of the universe.  He knows the ultimate conclusion (naturalism or theism), and in his effort to reveal truth, he looks for facts that fit in with the overall truth he believes actually exists.  Does this automatically invalidate his findings?  What if his findings are true?  Shouldn't the results be judged on their own merit rather than on the philosophical motivations of their finder?

I'm currently reading Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth, and tonight I came across a passage that perfectly illustrates the idea that scientist apologists for naturalism work in the same way as any apologist:

The famous duo who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick and James Watson, freely admit that anti-religious motivations drove their scientific work.  "I went into science because of these religious reasons, there's no doubt about that," Crick said in a recent interview.  "I asked myself what were the two things that appear inexplicable and are used to support religious beliefs."  He decided the two things that support religion were "the difference between living and nonliving things, and the phenomenon of consciousness."  He then aimed his own research specifically at demonstrating a naturalistic view of both.  [The original quote by Crick can be found here.]

But isn't an adherence to naturalistic evolution different from an adherence to a religion?  Not according to philosopher of science (and evolutionist) Michael Ruse who, when confronted with the charge that evolution functions as a religion, finally admitted [from Total Truth] "that evolution really is 'more than mere science....Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, a secular religion--a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality.'"  [See more on this here.]  As such, its followers seek to support it through their work.

So if it's the case that naturalistic scientists are defending their view and theistic scientists are defending their view, what good would it do us to dismiss all of their work?  Instead, we ought to recognize that no human being is neutral--we are all driven by philosophical presuppositions, and it's likely that claims on all sides will be exaggerated at times.  Our job is to examine and evaluate the evidence itself, following where it leads (even if away from our current worldview) regardless of who brought it to light.

This approach, rather than the other, will keep us on the path of truth.