Seeker I'm afraid you are.
Sorry, but the idea that, because someone doesn?t immediately dismiss, out of hand, the ID theory, they must be a Young Earth Creationist, or, at the very least, view Young Earth Creationism with a degree of credibility, is a standard ?wool-pulling? exercise and a pretty cheap lame one at that..
I most emphatically don?t think, or believe, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old; I wish this to be absolutely clear. Nevertheless I was prepared to read this with an open mind.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622692/Intelligent-design-is-not-creationism.html
Of course, I quite understand that, because Stephen C Meyer is a Christian, absolutely nothing he has to say is going to be worth even listening to. [Hmm] The qualifications he holds from reputable seats of learning mean nothing because he is clearly ?daft? and ?delusional?... Obvious, innit guv? The fact that he was one of the architects of the theory doesn?t matter because Wikipedia, so beloved of so many, tells us that, ?It is widely accepted in the scientific and academic communities that intelligent design is a form of creationism? Oh well then, widely accepted in the scientific community must mean, ?it is so?. 
There was some talk earlier in this thread about the Bombardier Beetle.
Wikipedia (again) tells us that this has been ?proved? to have evolved because
?All necessary intermediate stages have been found in extant beetles within or closely related to the bombardier beetle family, with each intermediate giving a definite advantage to the organism.[5]?
The reference is:
^ a b Isaak, Mark (May 30 2003). "Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design". TalkOrigins Archive.
Apart from the fact that, once again, we have the erroneous, implicit certainty of the intelligent design/creationist interdependency, (yawn) I have to say that I am quite taken with this guy. 
He freely admits that, ?This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it.? And I almost entirely agree that, ?The gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves.? (though I?d probably substitute ?can?t necessarily? for ?should not?.)
Can I see that Bombardier Beetles?, ?features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates.? ? (And it?s nice to do things, ?nicely?) Of course I can, contrary to popular belief, being a Christian doesn?t automatically mean I?m stupid. Is it easy for me to accept that, ?Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution?? Absolutely. But while I can?t comment on ?lots? of people (don?t like ?lots?, too vague, very unscientific) I can say, categorically that, just because, it seems impossible at the moment to explain exactly how the beetles evolved, I haven?t ?jumped to the conclusion? that an explanation will never be possible.
I can?t help but notice that he asks the question, ?Does evolution disqualify an intelligent designer?? and then fails to answer it in the affirmative. Sure, some people do ?reject the idea of evolution because they feel that it takes away any creative role for God?, and there is no doubt that some people are ?apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable?. No quibbles there from me; so far, so good. However, I am also inclined to the opinion that there is no doubt some people are apparently so uncomfortable with the possibility that we may never be all-knowing that they turn the possibly, ?unknowable? into the, so far, ?unknown?.
He makes the point that, ?Millions?? 
(bit more precise than, ?lots?, I suppose) ?of people around the world have no trouble believing in God and accepting evolution at the same time.? Yup, that?s me; on current scientific evidence, sign me up! (Disclaimer ? I do, however, reserve the right to change my mind, in the event of new evidence turning up.)
He claims that, ?ID arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorance combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution.?. What is this ?ignorance?? Ignorance of empirical evidence? Surely not? Maybe an inability or unwillingness to interpret the empirical evidence in the same way as science; the relatively new ?establishment?? Can it be that I have here an intelligent, articulate, educated man saying, to other intelligent, articulate, educated folk, ? You?re a theist you don?t interpret the findings the way I do, so you?re ignorant?? What is this, ?concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution?? I there any, remote possibility that it could be, in fact, evolution? ?Course not! The very idea! Silly, little me! 
Remember that the great Richard Dawkins said that living systems, "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"? That , ?for a purpose?, is the tricky bit, isn?t it? It can?t possibly have been designed ?for a purpose? because that might just possibly imply Intelligent Design; some kind of Architect, with ?Natural Selection? relegated to the role of builder. So, despite what we see, we clearly can?t even begin to think of beginning to trust our senses and experience, because we know that, ?the supernatural?, is merely a figment of our less intelligent peers? imaginations. (gavel) ?Off with her head!?
Only matter matters and the mind cannot exist because it can?t be seen! Yet I don't think anyone on here would deny the existence of human imagination so, with that in mind, let?s ?pretend??
Imagine two people in a room, with a thermometer. The thermometer tells both people that the temperature in the room is x degrees. There can be no argument, it?s there and both can see the evidence. Nevertheless, person A says ?My but it?s cold in here? while person B peels off a sweater and says. ?You?re joking, surely? It?s boiling hot!? Can either say that the other is ?wrong?? By what criteria? Because they don?t perceive the temperature in the same way?