Millions of biologists who use the theory of evolution in their research would disagree.
Of course they would: they are a herd of chattel who engage in lemminglike groupthink.
Research in the biological sciences would come to a screeching halt without the theory.
LOL. You say that like it's a bad thing.
"Well, it [Intelligent Design] could come about in the folowing way, it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilisation ... [came] to a very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, an intriguing possibility, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -- Richard Dawkins, atheist preacher, 2008
How else are we to make sense of the terabytes of genomic information pouring in?
It's called Intelligent Design.
"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.
"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.
"... nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter [nature] to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.
"And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman? Who made these things or devised them? 'No one,' you say. Oh, amazing shamelessness and stupidity!" -- Epictetus, philosopher, Discourses, Book I, 1st century
Can you name a single scientist using ID or creationism to produce original research that is published in peer reviewed scientific journals? I can't.
I can.
Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E.,
Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973
Axe, D.D.,
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004
Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W.,
Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004
Lönnig, W-E.,
Dynamic Genomes Morphological Stasis and the Origin of Irreducible Complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pages 101-119, 2005
Couvreur, P., and Vauthier, C.,
Nanotechnology: Intelligent Design to Treat Complex Diseases, Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 23, Number 7, Jul 2006
Meyer, S.C.,
The Origin Of Biological Information And The Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Volume 117, Number 2, Pages 213-239, May 2007
Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A.,
Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009
How can you censor a complete absence of science from the ID and creationist movement?
You're right: it's pretty hard to censor something that has already been suppressed.
It is not the fault of science that they fail to produce anything resembling scientific research.
See the peer-reviewed science you've been deliberately kept unaware of posted above.