Dishonesty and ID

Its not that ID is hard to understand, it simply isn't good science. It makes no testable predictions. If and when the hypothesis puts forth a hypothesis explaining current data, making predicition based on that theory, and testing those predicitions, then it will fall under the category of science. If it is repeatable, passes critisms of peer review (all science, including evolution, must repeatadly and constantly do this), and over time proves itself to be a reliable hypothesis, it may well become a scientific theory. However, tentitive hypothesis shouldn't be taught in schools. ID is not even tentive yet, since it has yet to reach a level of testable hypothesis. That is why it is mocked by scientists and educators.
As much as it must gall most creationists, evolution is a heavily supported theory that has been tested numerous times and been found reliable. It has led to our modern understanding of genetics, which further corraberates its mechanics. It has been revised to reflect new data over time (even the most solid theories are revised to reflect new discoveries and data), and is simply the best scientific theory for biological diversity at this time. Who know, perhaps a hundred years from now it will be tossed out in favor of a better and more accurate theory? Till then, it is the most reliable and accurate theory we have for biodiversity and will be taught as such.