Opponents of intelligent design often point to the lack of scientific proof. They generally forget to mention that any credentialed scholar that attempts to put forward such proof is likely to have his credentials or his access to publishing in scientific journals yanked. All because the writers of said papers believed the evidence pointed to the existence of a Creator.
It would be different if scientifc papers and institutions were saying, " This is the criteria we require all those who publish academic papers in our journal to meet. " Instead, as was the case with Scientific American a few months ago, Unless your paper supports atheistic evolution kiss your chances good-bye, and if you belong to any academic fellowships they'll go after you too.
Science was supposed to be about the search for the truth whever the facts lead. But modern Science has evolved into the religion of Scientism in which you can follow the facts provided that they don't lead to a Creator, even if that's where the evidence points.
It's kind of like tying your opponent to a chair and then calling him a coward for not fighting you, or locking him in prision and then complaining that he is to scared to debate you.
It is many things, but it isn't fair, and it's not science!