Hm. What do I think of them.
Well, when it comes to creationism, there's a fine line between earnest faith based beliefs, and intellectual dishonest abuse of topics of science. It's like asking what I think of Ken Ham. Some days he comes off as a complete con artist, but then other days he comes off as someone who sincerely believes what he preaches, despite it sounding crazy.
And there's a spectrum there. With YECism, OECism, ID, and TE. Because of the generally mysterious nature of God or of existence, naturally there's just a lot of variety of theological views, including things like atheism and agnosticism. Personally, I think that within Christianity, theistic evolution is the only decent option with respect to being perfectly honest about scientific topics. Simply because TE doesn't really have any theological limits for what science says.
So, I guess for ID, I'd have to say, it has a mild form of dishonesty wrapped into earnest belief, and there's history with cdesign proponentists and some dishonest approaches by IDers in that regard.
So they can't really be trusted. And I think Meyer in particular takes a pretty dishonest approach to paleontology as well.
But at the end of the day, for them, honesty doesn't really matter. Like in the court of law, lawyers make arguments in favor of things, not necessarily because it's right or wrong, but because that's what their career falls upon. Criminals can go free with good lawyers who make good arguments. And that's what Meyer does. He makes arguments, he sells books, he makes a salary, perhaps he goes to church afterwards and feels as though he's doing God's work, and that's good enough for him.
