ID's popularity will wane over time as less (or more, in which case its popularity would decrease) arguments (derived from new evidence) either prove or disprove macroevolution. My theory is that it has become more popular lately due to the abundance of evidence that blows up Darwinism (but not modern evolutionary sythnthesis).
Darwin was a proponent of bottom up macroevolution, meaning complexity must increase and traditional (not modern evolution synthesis) evolution agreed with this. Recent research has blown this theory up. From my link earlier in the thread:
There will always be questions that remained unanswered by science. There will be room for ID even if things get explained at the chemical level because there is the quantum level and then the sub-quantum level and then.... etc/etc/etc.
Some find comfort in a faith based explanation to all the unanswered questions in the world, this will never change no matter how much data is accumulated. The faith based explanations will never be confronted either because it's impossible to disprove.
However, no matter how little evidence or how much evidence is accumulated we can't turn to these faith based answers from a scientific perspective because they represent stagnation. They give the impression that an answer already exists. If you want to shit all over Darwin that's fine, the poor guy was operating with much more limited data, but be mindful of the progress scientists made in coming up with modern evolutionary synthesis. In the meantime the faith based approach is exactly the same as it was thousands of years ago, God period.
When I engineer something I can't just yell at my computer saying "God" and have a good design be created, therefore from my perspective all of this discussion can stay in a religious institution and not get into schools.
Facebook
Twitter