I'd like to revisit this subject since it's been a while since this discussion was posted and we have both grown and received quite a few questions on this topic. I feel very strongly that creationism and ID questions should be allowed, as DVK says, as long as they are good questions in the SE sense.
We need to remember that there are still parts of the world where intelligent design is taught as though it were a true alternative to evolution. This means that a lot of people actually take it seriously and believe the arguments against evolutionary theory. Every such argument I have ever come across is laughingly easy to shoot down, so let's!
In other words if a question is:
A good fit for the SE model: answerable.
An honest query. Someone who is confused by the misinformation they were taught in school or church or wherever and is posting here to get the view of the scientific community.
Not using god(s) as an argument, if it is attempting to attack evolution through the scientific method and not arguments of the type "But it says so in Holy Book X!".
Then the question should be not only allowed but welcomed. We should try our utmost to explain why the OP is wrong and why their misunderstandings are just that, misunderstandings. For example, consider these questions:
Refutation of Darwin's Random Evolution Theory. This one is essentially "I read X, it seems reasonable to me, please explain why it's not." This is a good question and has received good answers and the OP has accepted one. That's good for everyone involved.
How does the modern theory of evolution solve these apparent problems? This one has problems because the OP has combined many questions in one and that is a good reason to close it. However, each of those questions alone should be perfectly welcome. The OP is clearly confused and is trying hard to understand. We should help.
A question regarding evolution This is one of many questions whose OP is confused by the idea that evolution is "random". Again, something we can answer and explain very easily.
There are many more. My point is that most of us have spent many years studying biology and have a very deep understanding of what exactly the theory of evolution actually is. We forget that despite the simplicity of the basic premise (natural selection) the theory itself is not that simple and many otherwise perfectly intelligent people have a very flawed understanding of what the theory actually postulates. It is also very much not the same as it was when Darwin first published his book. Finally, it is a theory that has very real philosophical implications and I feel that as the experts we have an obligation to explain what it is that it actually says to those laymen who wish to understand.
For example, this is part of comment I received on one of my answers:
I think you need to adjust for the fact that you were considering sexually reproductive organisms and you assumed random mutations to get genomes. What you actually need to assume is random mutations that produce two viable partners (unique species) of both male and female within the same generation. Unfortunately, that might add orders of magnitude to the statistical unlikeliness of getting a proper match. Maybe I missed something in your example?
This led to a perfectly civil interaction with the poster of that comment who very simply believed (despite being in a scientific field) that Lamarck's theories were what evolution is all about (let's ignore epigenetics for the moment :) ). This is the kind of thing we can easily address.
We might also want to consider creating a set of canonical Q&As which address some of the classic creationist/ID "arguments" (canards, or even better conards) and simply close those that come in as dupes of the appropriate one.
So, in short, bring it on! Let's try and give good, clear answers and increase the understanding of our fellow apes.