I can't speak on behalf of all scientists (obviously) and my field is materials and physics, not biology, geology or cosmology etc but as you asked, here are my thoughts.
I've seen there debates. Lots. Forgive of for generalising: I tend to see an enormous amount of misunderstanding from the ID camp about the very basics of evolution. Notice in this thread abiogenesis hasn't even been mentioned, this is pretty normal in there debates. I tend to see IDers lumping evolution, abiogenesis and the 'big bang' together and saying things like "there's on proof". They miss the point. Philosophically the concept of "proof" is meaningless and science is not in the business of "proving" things. Observations are made, these are facts. From those facts postulations are made, to which theories are created such that the facts can be better understood and, importantly, predicted. In science, there is only ever proof that something isn't right, not proof that something is right. Consider, for example, the general relativity debate. It was only when we were able to examine the nanoscopic world that we discovered special relativity only worked on the large scale. The theory (a model) was proven not to be complete. Whether it was 'right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant. It was able to predict (with great accuracy) the facts of the operation of the universe on the large scale, but it's limits became known so more robust theories had to be created, vis a vis quantum theory. Even with quantum theory the history of the discovery of the quark is a good example of how science isn't in the business of "proving" things, it simply works to create better and better predictive models.
That being said, these are the facts. There are fossilised remains of ancient animals and plants. There remains show that species, in general, are not discreet groups but change (the age of the fossils can be obtained by radiometric dating) over time. Evidence of this gradual species change can be witnessed today, consider what man's farming techniques have done to the banana, for example! So, we know for a fact that life does evolve, this is an observable fact. Modern genetic testing corroborates this, we can see that specimens that appear to be closely related have the most similar DNA, suggesting a family relationship. These are facts. The theory of evolution (the use of the same word 'evolution' possibly causes confusion) works to explain the process by which these changes occur. As I said before, the theory works to make predictions, as evidence is found that doesn't support the theory, the theory is modified. This, however, doesn't change the facts.
I have seen time and time again proponents of ID saying that "evolution hasn't been proven, it's just a theory". They do not know what a scientific theory is nor what it is for, clearly. Or, more worryingly, they do but are deliberately misleading people. Scary. I also hear stories about how ID is shunned from mainstream science as if by some great conspiracy. This is not the case. There are two important kinds of publications in science journals (ignoring letters and reviews): papers sharing new facts that have been discovered and papers suggesting theories to explain those facts. These papers are peer reviewed to make sure misinformation isn't published. ID supporters (indeed, anyone!) is welcome to submit papers to be reviewed, but if they are found not to present new facts or theories to predict facts, they are rightly discarded. This is where ID falls down. ID doesn't seek to find theories to explain and predict facts, it makes claims of 'truths' and 'proofs' that in no way present new facts nor present new predictive theories, ergo ID is not science. This is why they have thier own publications. Not because they are forbidden from publishing in a mainstream journal but because they do not present any science. [NOTE: In science circles you will hear of 'proofs' but these are works of algebra and logic, not a proof of a theory's 'truth' but a proof that the theory can predict the facts known at that time. The idea of a theory being 'true' is nonsensical to a scientist. If it's 'truth' you're after, ask a philosopher
As for abiogenesis, teams are working on understanding this but it should be remembered what 'life' technically is. Life is nothing more than a biochemical process. Life, as a process, is a fact. Theories about the first cause of this process are being created. Watch this space
As for the big bang, this as another fact. It is an observable fact that the universe is expanding (see Dopler shift) and we can extrapolate that expansion back to a single point. It must be remembered we're limited by language and the very dimensions of spacetime are defined by the movement of the matter therein, matter itself being a bit of a mystery (hence the LHC, a machine build to test a predictive theory). Anyway, cause cause of the universe is not known (and some people think it is unknowable). Ideas have been put forward from M-theory but at the moment as no predictive theories have been put forward these ideas seem to be the realm of philosophy, not science.
I just realised I should mention that these fact that are observed can be misinterpreted (and sometimes/often are), but, as I said, the IDers are completely free to present their own facts if they should discover any. So far their main aim seems to be simply to discredit the good science already done, rather than do any of their own.
I've probably gone on long enough.
So, yes, this scientist here thinks that IDers are misguided at best, or downright corrupt at worst. What IDers do is not science.
If you do want to discuss my thoughts further you'll have to PM me I think, I can already predict how the responses are going to go on here (having seen them a thousand times elsewhere) so I can't see any benefit me staying with this thread
Feel free to PM me.