But when you read them they support evolution. Which is why folks like Behe and Denton accept the fact of common descent.
It is interesting that on one hand we here accusations that ID advocates are discriminated against and fired for their beliefs, and on the other hand we have claims of hundreds of peer reviewed articles by ID advocates.
What is missing is the ID hypothesis, the clear statement of something to be expected that is different from what natural selection expects. In other words, a research program or plan supporting some hypothesis.
The reason for these two seemingly contradictory facts is that ID advocates know when to keep their head down when they want to keep their jobs, and when they want to be published. Like the old dissidents in the Soviet Union, there are ways around to get around the obstacles orthodoxy.
What is missing is the ID hypothesis, the clear statement of something to be expected that is different from what natural selection expects. In other words, a research program or plan supporting some hypothesis.
I absolutely agree with you that applied research programs and plans are needed and that the ID hypothesis needs to be refined thereby. As far as I'm concerned the approach to scientific investigation in this area should be is "anything goes". I'm not holding my breath, though. If people's livelihood and reputations are threatened there is usually not a lot of professional impetus for paradigm shifts.
Cordially,