The tone of the introduction seems to reflect an unwillingness to accept that Intelligent Design scientists EXIST within the scientific community There are a handful of scientists who are ID proponents you can pretty much count them without running out of fingers There are probably quite a few more who are sympathetic to the idea But no one is actually using ID in science They re a real political presence yes but they aren t using ID in their scientific endeavours So as far as the science of ID they don t exist We have a separate intelligent design movement article that deals with the political movement This article is about the so called science of ID How would you propose we change this article What sources are we missing or are we misrepresenting It isn t really about our opinions it s about representing sources in a balanced fashion What do you suggest we change