2) Does Intelligent Design support theistic evolution or special creation? Does it support both?

No. ID is neutral on these matters as it is not a theory but a testing device. What conclusions people wish to draw from the results of the tests is beyond the scope of the tests themselves. ID is compatible with everything from Crick's directed panspermia and a form of naturalistic evolution (with front-loaded specified complexity), to theistic evolution (i.e. continual guided information changes), progressive creation, and special creation.

So my question above should have been, "Is Intelligent Design COMPATIBLE with with both theistic evolution and special creation? Your answer to this question is "yes, it is compatible with both"?

The bottom line is that science needs to be agnostic regarding the possibility of intelligent input in the natural history of the Cosmos.

Science is agnostic. Your statement above seems to be a contradiction. To be agnostic is to believe that the existence of God is unknowable. One who is agnostic is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God. How can someone be agnostic in favor of God (or an intelligent designer)? If you're agnostic, you're not pro or con, you're neutral... just like science.

Regarding the definition of 'agnostic' I apologize. Is there a term, then, for "I don't know but I'm willing to explore"? That is where I think science should be -- not excluding any possibility from the outset.

I think you simply mean science should be "open minded" to the possibility of design? But, even if it is, it will not accept design as a valid scientific conclusion without positive empirical evidence to support it.

Do you see what you just said? Even if science is "open minded" it would refuse to accept one possible conclusion. That, my friend, is NOT what being "open-minded" means! Now, when an archaeologist is looking at stones and such or what may or may not be shards of pottery, do you think he is going to refuse the concept of intelligent design from the outset? The entire point of his work is to see IF something is intelligently designed, whether or not he expects to find it there. Now, if an archaeologist can look at a chipped rock and declare it intelligently designed and part of a tool, you are nevertheless telling me that a scientist looking at cellular structures is right in refusing the concept of intelligent design because there is no empirical evidence for it? Give me a break!

Note: This is a very confused person. She seems to be saying that science isn't open minded because it won't acknowledge the existence of God. Science doesn't acknowledge or reject God, scientists do! That's because they are human beings that have personal opinions and beliefs. The scientific method has been designed to weed out the personal bias, by simply demanding that you back up your personal opinions with testable empirical evidence. Creationists seem to be very angry about this. If God won't show up to the Lab for tests, it's not our fault! Her argument then becomes angered and illogical as she complains that Archaeologist get to claim design when they find tools!