If you want to be specific, then science doesn't dismiss ID. Scientists and their followers do. ...and therein lies the problem. Not just about ID, but about many of the opinions of scientists and their blind followers. It is a bit like knowing the difference between Christians, and Christianity. Americans may claim America is a Christian nation, but looking to the levels of corruption, crime, etc. in America, you would not conclude Americas Christians were unilaterally following the teachings of Christianity.
It essentially disregards it for the simple reason that a theory presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An unfalsifiable theory is to that extent a weak theory. There are stonger theories with all manner of evidence to occupy scientists. Your thread about "scientific dogma" is nothing more than your displeasure with the scientific community's dismissal of that which you hold dear. The dogma of which you speak is your own.
You are confusing scientists with science again. There is no science of a random chance cause, there is no math for it, but scientists propose it is the underlying cause for the changes we see in biological organisms. A link is created by scientists, not science, which is generated by the assumption of some mysterious force that creates random chance mutations. That is not science, it is science fiction.