The article is incredibly badly titled, but it does make a good point in terms of ID.
I am not saying ID is correct, or that evolution is not scientific, but the point that people make is that unless something can be observed and repeatable, it cannot become scientific law, is something which is true about both.
Evolution has been observed, through fossils etc, but the repeatability of random mutations is an oxymoron, especially if we don't know how many combinations there are, or have an finite window to study things that mutate.
ID (the core principle) shouldn't be used in a religious sense either. ID can mean something as small as having inherent laws in the universe that drive evolution forward. A core principle of evolution is that organic lifeforms have the inherent nature to survive and procreate. Where did that inherent nature come from? Did it evolve? how did species start if that wasn't inherently there to begin with?
There are fundamental questions unanswered about both theories, however to call one or the other 'anti-science' is ridiculous. Scientists should be looking for answers, wherever they come, regardless of whether they fit one theory or another. In this case, many of the current observational evidence could fit either theory, and actually that's likely by design, the underlying difference is simply whether the nature of the forward moving progression in species is due to design or whether its random.
The ranting dot-points really let the author down, as many of them are also wrong (or falsities as he/she likes to put it). They are purely frustrations about a theory that hasn't been proven, rather than trying to prove their own theory as more correct. Evolution has a long way to go, but ID does also, and creationism has much much further to go.
Expand
