Those are theories that have a basis in observed processes, and they, too, are still under construction. ID is hardly "lethal to scientific inquiry." It is the very foundation of existence and the ability to inquire intelligently about it. It does not need to assert itself into the foreground and prove itself before we begin to ask questions and test what has been placed before us. It is operative before the observer has a first thought about the whole puzzle. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
To the extent arguments for ID draw attention to themselves they look bad. It's like grabbing a beer out of the refrigerator and then trying to prove "scientifically" to anyone who might be paying attention that it is cold and is about to be consumed.
I notice you didn't provide the examples I requested.