Nearly always when this false, unfounded charge is asserted the inference of calling ID Theory a religion or creationism is based upon the belief that religion or creationism could not be science. This is a logical fallacy to begin with because science is in and of itself a philosophy.
In a certain sense ID Theory is indeed a philosophy. In the context of the greater macro picture, all science is in and of itself a philosophy. Although there is no philosophy involved in acquiring empirical data and the general process of the scientific method, science cannot separate itself from philosophy. Determining the fitness of the falsifiability of an hypothesis is a philosophical contemplation. The discussion as to whether a general proposition should be deemed a scientific theory is a philosophical contemplation. The interpretation of empirical data is largely subjective and philosophical. Interpreting evidence from an atheistic viewpoint is equally erroneously biased as would be from a theistic perspective. Science originated from natural philosophy, so it is inherently philosophy. Even empiricism, which is requisite to science is also in and of itself a philosophy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism.
Notwithstanding the fact that all science is philosophy in a certain context, ID Theory is very much science, https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/proof-as-to-why-id-is-science/.
The false accusation to disprove ID as being science is to falsely charge it as being a religion or creationism. Here’s a comparison between ID Theory and Creationism that clearly indicates they are very much distinguishable and should not be regarded as being the same:
Creationism is based upon religion; ID does not recognize any ideology.
Creationism is based upon the Bible; ID is not.
Creationism is based upon the Book of Genesis; ID is not.
Creationism is based upon philosophy; ID is not.
Creationism holds the Creator is the God of Israel; ID does not.
Creationism holds the Earth was created in six days; ID does not.
Creation science is primarily based upon geology and the fossil record; ID is based upon biochemistry.
Creation websites quote Bible verses; ID websites do not.
Creationists refute evolutionary theory; ID does not.
Creationism is an interpretation of the Book of Genesis; ID does not recognize the Bible.
Creationism requires a deity; ID does not.
Creationism identifies a designer; ID does not.
Creationism explains everything; ID does not.
Creationism offers macroevolution as an hypothesis; ID offers irreducible complexity.
Creationism relies heavily on the geologic fossil record pointing at gaps, and complaining of absence of transitional life forms; ID shuns arguments from ignorance positions.
Creationism studies flood geology; ID is a study of genetic information
Creationism does not have an applied science; ID is active in applied sciences such as bioengineering, biotech, bioinformatics, selective breeding, and biomimicry.