Okay, since most critics can only hear "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written, things have becomes more complicated in the Post Wedge World. For now it appears that we have at least four types of ID critics.
Type A: This group of critics does not think science can address questions about the existence of God and thinks it is erroneous to do so. This group opposes people trying to use science as a Trojan Horse for either theism or atheism. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a genuine concern to keep science as free of metaphysics and politics as possible. Someone like Eugenie Scott belongs to this group.
Type B: This group of critics wants to use science to evangelize for atheism, but they want to seduce, rather than coerce, people into their beliefs. They are part of a growing movement that may very well blur the boundaries between religion and science, as they speak of science using the language and emotions of religion. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a perceived Culture War, where ID is viewed as a competing metaphysic. Someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson belongs to this group.
Type C: This group of critics wants to use science to evangelize for atheism, but they want to coerce, rather than seduce, people into their beliefs. They are part of a growing movement that doesn't as much advocate science-as-religion as they do scientism, often posturing as hard-headed, objective scientists who care only about the evidence. Their opposition to the ID movement is largely rooted in a perceived Culture War, where ID is viewed as a competing and evil metaphysic. Someone like Richard Dawkins belongs to this group.
Type D: This group of critics represent the religious people who oppose ID for theological reasons. In other words, since they equate ID with religion, ID is thus viewed as a competing theological/religious claim about the world. Someone like Keith Miller belongs to this group.
Type B and C critics are Evangelical Atheists who are peddling a worldview. Type C critics are the true hardcore cases, as they accuse Type A critics of being the Appeasers. Type B critics complain about type C critics, worrying that their hardcore approach is too offensive, and thus ultimately ineffective when it comes to converting the world. Type A critics are also worried about type C critics, but for different reasons. They think the Type C critics will ultimately strengthen the hand of those who want to use science to evangelize for religion. Type A critics seek alliance with type D critics for political reasons, while type C critics lump the type D critics with Creationists.
In the end, Type C critics stand out and are essentially secular mirror-images of hardcore religious fundamentalists. Type B critics are essentially secular mirror-images of moderate/New Age-type religionists. Also, it may be hard to tell a Type A critic apart from a Type B critic, as they are both going to be "sensitive" to religion. The type A critic is sensitive because they seek political alliance with the type D critic. The type B critic is sensitive for evangelical reasons, as the seek to entice religionists with naturalism/atheism.
There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the "ID=religion/God" stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as "Creationists" and "threats to Science."
Perhaps we should return the labeling favor. Feel free to use the comments section to replace Type A, B, C, and D with the appropriate labels. Perhaps a consensus can be reached to expand our lexicon.