The aim of this article (and any other Wikipedia article) is that it accurately reflect reliably sources.  Since intelligent design is a fringe subject, it's also important that we don't present it as it were mainstream science.  
There are atheists (and even a few agnostics) that considered ID a viable hypothesis long before the Discovery Institute was founded.  So, the use of the word "all" in the opening paragraph is just petty and wrong.  Well, no.  All of the major proponents do appear to be associated with the DI.  No one is arguing that there were no ID proponents before the DI existed.  But as far as we can glean from reliable sources, they all ended up associated with the DI.  If you have sources that suggest otherwise, please let us know.  We can only work off of reliable sources.  There's nothing "petty" about it.
There is truth and there is opinion, you have written a fine opinion piece..."  Two things.  One of that "truth" isn't something we can work with - we need reliable sources.  I can know that something is true, but if I don't have a reliable source to support that fact, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  That said, on what basis do you consider this an opinion piece?  Are the sources misrepresented?  Are there reliable sources that are not represented?  ...that does nothing to support or defend evolution...  Again, it isn't our place to support or defend anything.What are the facts that support ID vs evolution?  I think we would all like to know the answer to that question.  I haven't actually come across any.  Are you aware of any reliable sources that discuss any?  I don't believe that there are any.  Congratulations, you are zealots in the evolution religion.''  Er, yeah.  If you want anyone to take you seriously, you shouldn't accuse people of people "zealots" or of belonging to some non-existent religion.  Seriously.  Provide some sources to support your position.  Let us know if we are missing any notable perspectives on the issue.  Let us know if we are missing relevant sources.  Let us know if any sources are misrepresented.  We're willing to listen.  But not to silliness like this.