First a disclaimer: My personal leaning is that God created this universe ex-nihilo (that is, out of nothing) over a period of (most likely) about 14 billion years, precisely as described in the Genesis account. Most importantly mankind was a direct and specific creation of God into which he breathed his Spirit, created in God's image, unique and special among all creatures.
ID is tied to Creationism inasmuch as it's an attempt to provide a theory consistent with historical Christianity (and Judaism and Islam, for that matter) without actually mentioning "God", per se.
However, ID has become strongly associated with "young-earth" creationism, whose scientific merits are disputed by much of the scientific community. A young-earth viewpoint necessarily disputes Big-bang cosmology and the consequent billions of years age of the universe, and anything else that can't fit into an age of about 8,000 to 15,000 years.
Biblical creationism is not limited to a young-earth model and Reasons to Believe has a lot of material offering an alternative creation model within an old-earth framework.
That said, creationism is typically opposed to evolution and so is ID, since the point is that God created the universe and everything in it, including and especially us.
But some argue that Theistic or "directed" evolution occured, whereby God set things in motion and then sits back and observes it all play out (perhaps tinkering occasionally, perhaps not). Certainly there is merit in the idea that a perfect and infinite God could do so and quite simply "get it right from the get go".
My opinion on the evidence...
Personally, I find the evolution viewpoint hard to defend from both Scripture and from scientific evidence. It's not so much that evolution can't have happened, but rather that, in my opinion, the scientific evidence supports creation as the better explanation at this point in our scientific knowledge. At the same time, Scripture is also much better understood as supporting direct and supernatural creation rather than evolution.
I suspect that many people see the debate as being between two poles: (1) Old earth naturalism, and (2) Young earth creationism. I think that possibly most people, scientists included, reject a young earth view and with it creationism, thereby falling by default to what is perceived as only remaining option, Old earth naturalism. I am saying there's a third choice, which IMO is worthy of consideration and better harmonizes science and scripture.
In response to the claim that "98% of all biologists, including many Christians, accept evolution as the better scientific explanation" from Bruce Alderman, and quite apart from the fact that there is no good basis for that statistic...
It may be that a significant portion of those who adhere to evolution do so because their personal philosophy and world-view do not permit them to do otherwise. In other words, naturalism is the only acceptable explanation for someone who fundamentally rejects the possibility of a deity. We humans are funny about our preconceived notions in that way (on both sides of the debate).
Now, personal philosophy is not irrelevant, though we may like to delude ourselves that it is. If one cannot personally accept the possibility of a deity, one cannot accept any explanation for this universe except naturalism, no matter how compelling the evidence one way or the other. So, supposing the evidence supports a divine creator, perhaps even powerfully, ones a priori presupposition excludes the better conclusion and forces a lessor conclusion than would be reached if the evidence was viewed objectively without bias.
My point is not pertaining to the execution of the scientific method, on which point I agree with Bruce. My point is that saying 98% of biologists are naturalists is meaningless if 98% of biologists are also of a philosophical persuasion that cannot accept a non-naturalist conclusion. It simply means that 98% of biologists cannot accept any other conclusion. (Or perhaps 90%, or 80% etc cannot, in which case the statistic is at the least much less meaningful, if at all).