(this is worse than pulling teeth )
Correct me if I'm wrong
Science in general is only looking for the truth of 'how it is" and doesn't claim evidence as fact unless it is proven. So in general it does not have a bias stance of how everything got here, or what it is. And in general does not claim something as fact unless there is solid evidence for it? And if there is solid evidence for intelligent design, it will come out, wether that be in years, decades or whatever.
If creationist science is telling the evidence of nature what they already are, they are be placing a connection on nature that may not in reality be there. And if they say they already know how everything got here..that is incorrect..because we don't (as far as I'm aware) It's that combination, that I find biased and nothing to do with attacking someone's personal belief.
If solid evidence suggested a possibility of intelligent design, then I would be all ears. If the search is for the unbiased truth and how it really is, then from my point of view I'd have to be careful of adding a personal belief to it. (but i aint no scientist so I don't know if it's my place to say... only my opinion).