Assume ID is true

Well the obvious reason is that they already have a good idea of what they would find and they don't like it. ID is religious apologetics and the only reaon it pretends to be science is to try to steal the authority that science enjoys in our culture.

I mean that they know that they will find things that suggest that the designer was less than perfect and far from being entirely benevolent.Even if they believe they can get around that problem they don't want to talk about it to much. When talking to relgious groups they can be (and are) open about the idea that the designer is God but they can't make it "official" because their "official" stance is that ID is not religious.

It IS odd behaviour for a scientist. But it is quite normal for an apologist. The apologist is only interested in supporting what he already "knows" to be true. So long as he has a plausible argument (or even an argument that sounds plausible to him) he doesn't really care about the objections. After all since he couldn't be wrong then there can't be any valid objections.A lot of apologists are very sloppy - because they are so busy assuming that they are right they often miss glaring errors.

No, I criticise creationists for refusing to seriously examine THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't.IDers have NOT shown that natural processes cannot "make" life. All they do is assert it. And the topic of this thread is they then refuse to examine the implications of that belief.And no, it is not the case that "Godly" scientists have serious problems. Religious apologists who falsely claim that their religious views are scientifically supported on the other hand come in for frequent criticism from believers as well as atheists.And do you realise that "nothing in the Bible contradicts science" usually means that speaker will not even accept that science which contradicts his interpretation of the Bible IS science.