The answer to that question largely depends upon who you are. But the important thing to note is that there's an asymmetry in importance for the participants.

For a theist like me, other than as a matter of curiosity, I don't actually care (for example) if the bacterial flagellum turns out to be irreducibly complex or not. Yes, I'm having a vigorous (and verbose) debate with Ryan (in the comments here), but in the end, it's no big threat to my worldview either way. If "intelligent design" were demonstrated, it would be another nice bit of evidence for a designer (which I would assume to be God), but if not, there are plenty of other arguments out there. Further, I would see Darwinian evolution as yet more evidence that God had wired the universe to produce life.

(Though note: as much as it might require some adjustments in my lifestyle, I've always tried to remain open to the idea there might be no God. I went through a time period in college where I researched exactly that question; I'm a theist today because I found that to be the stronger position, not because I was afraid of change or clinging to childhood beliefs.)

Professor Bradley Monton, an atheist who defends ID and is interested in examining evidence for God's existence, and/or a designer of some sort, seems to be coming from a similar position: I would suspect he'd prefer to keep his atheism intact, but, being intellectually honest, he seems to understand it would be rather important to know if God existed, or at least what the best evidence is to that extent. (Leaving him a better-informed atheist, if not sufficiently convincing.)

Such parties are open to any result from the intelligent design debate: something is to be gained either way.

But I observe something else in the behavior of some coming from the materialist side (and perhaps a few young-earth creationists): They seem to believe their whole worldview is at stake. You see them throw insults, heap scorn on those who see things different, and even threaten the friendship or employment of those who don't "tow the line."

Again, this is understandable: When I discuss intelligent design, I'm not debating God's existence. I'm simply asking an interesting question about the evidence, and where it stands. So I see ID as a debate about evidence, a fun curiosity.

On the other hand, for many materialists, ID is a debate about God. If evidence of designer exists, his or her whole worldview could be threatened. So it's not surprising that most atheists insist ID is a way of smuggling theology into the classroom, or insist it's really "creationism" (it isn't). For me, it's an abstract scientific question ("can we detect design? is it present?"); for them, it could very well imply something deeply religious.

(The tip-off, for me, here is that many kept referring to ID as "creationism". Of course, for them it must be. For me, not necessarily.)

If so, it's not surprisingly that some engage in all sorts of fallacious arguments and even vicious tactics. Some people have their ego tightly linked to their worldview, and all bets are off when the ego is threatened.

I suspect a few young-earth creationists could fall into this trap as well: Most of the ones I know are rather kind, but I have seen at least one, on line (years ago), who clearly used intellectual dishonesty and insulted everyone who didn't agree with him. Like the atheists above, a few are highly sensitive to fellow 'believers' who don't agree with them: I know at least two friends who reacted rather strongly (and were concerned I'm disobeying God) because I offered to show them biblical, internal evidence the word "day" in early Genesis could not have meant a strict 24-hour period.

Probably not making any friends here, but that's how it looks to me.