That is kind of you.
So he was saying ID was science? Wouldn’t it be fine to teach ID in a course as something beyond science (i.e. not science)? Ignore for a moment the arguments they make in scientific error. For example, the fine tuning argument is based on solid science (or at least it can be), but the argument itself is beyond science.
I would hope so. What was he told?
Which is why people should know and follow The Rules of the Game.