The RfC I was referring to was the informal one on the article talk page; I notice no one has responded to it but we have all chosen the threaded discussion instead. I'm all for an outside discussion, but I'm thinking you may not approve of the Denialism category itself, which is a whole 'nuther argument. Have you checked it out to see what's in it? 
I think you may have missed what we are saying is being deniedevolution. We are not saying that to believe in God is denialism or that God is a fairy tale. I believe in God (Elohim, Jehovah, El Shaddai). We're saying that denying evolution is denialism of the accepted scientific theory. You wrote, "While some editors have argued that this refers to ID's alleged denial of evolution. . ." Why "alleged"? I quoted Behe to you from the DI's website: "Darwinism is false." That is patent denial of evolution. 
I agree with Cla88's post of 00:57, 28 February 2012. The first paragraph of the lede is deeply flawed, and probably the tone of the whole article is dismissive editorializing rather than objective presentation of the concept. I haven't read the whole thing at one sitting for a long time, so I'm not sure of that. The first paragraph is very confusing on the identity of the designer, which should not even be brought up there. (ID proponents, though, are themselves two-faced about this point.) This subject is very contentious and I despair of ever seeing a fully objective article. When I'm in Wiki-land, I do as the Wikipedians doadhere to the 5 pillars.
Also, I hope you've caught on that the specific variety of intelligent design of which this particular article treats is the ID of the Discovery Institute and its affiliates and sympathizers. (Can't think of a better word than sympathizerfollower, maybe; those who agree with and may promote the idea without actually being affiliated. The community church on the corner, for example.) That means everything will focus on the Johnson/Dembski/Behe/et al axis.
Best wishes!