Science or Religion?

It's quite a question, isn't it? It rears its head in the school systems all the time, and it gets screen time in the scientific community as well. Should Creationism, or even Intelligent Design, be ruled out of education or theories because they have religious background?
Let me define some terms here so we're all on the same page. There is a difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. The premise of Creationism is that the universe was created by some god or another. Intelligent Design includes, but is not limited to, Creationism. ID is based on the premise that some intelligent being created the universe, but it doesn't have to be a deity. Could be aliens, other high life forms, etc. Creationism has a religious connotation, whereas ID could be religious or philisophical. Evolution, likewise, is based on the premise that life happened by random chance and that simple life forms have evolved into more and more complex being, each better than the previous, because of natural selection. It exludes the influence of a higher power in creation. Evolution, then, would be philosophically based.
With that out of the way, let's get down to the thick stuff.
The argument for keeping Creationism and/or ID out of the schools and science is that they have a basis in religion. Science, they argue, should be science, not religion. Religion should stay in religion class, not be taught in the labs. They define science as the explanation of phenomenon through natural processes.
Now wait just a second.
Evolution, Creationism, and ID do have one thing in common: they are philosophies. They are not based on something that can be proved, but something that is believed. None of these are based on pure, unadulterated science. Science itself must be based on an unprovable premise. So it's not so much a science versus religion question, it's more of a philosophy versus religion question.
By keeping Creationism and/or ID out of schools and science, the scientific community is in fact limiting science. If the evidence says there is a creator (or creators), so be it. Scientists ought to go where the evidence takes them, not set up road blocks with definitions.
This impacts more than just the scientific community. It hits the school systems too. By ruling out Creationism and ID from standard curriculum and/or refusing to allow teachers to discuss these theories with their students, they are, perhaps unintentionally, brainwashing the students. If all you ever heard was evolution, and all that "religion stuff" had nothing to do with science, you'd never even consider the possibilities of Creationism or ID.
The question shouldn't be, "Does this theory/philosophy have religous connotations?" The issue, rather, should be, "Which theory/philosophy best fits the scientific evidence?"