Courts have ruled that ID is a form of creationism, and have thus disallowed its being taught in school science classes. Without getting into too much detail, I'll just say that ID was invented to put a scientific veneer on creationism. In reality, neither ID nor creationism have any scientific basis, and their resemblance to anything in the Bible is fairly thin, as well.
The articles you linked by Doug Axe are only available for a price from ScienceDirect. I found him as an author of 9 articles indexed in PubMed, of which 2 are free access. One of them predates his association with the Discovery Institute, but with the other, I was able to see that he is funded by Discovery Institute, through their "Biologic Institute." The research done at the Biologic Institute seems limited (very few researchers and limited labspace is my impression), but, as far as I can tell, is pretty standard research which fits into everything we know about evolution.
Well that settles it then... The courts get everything correct. But seriously, don't ignore the other links provided for many other peer-reviewed articles and research. Do you subscribe to the alternative to ID?
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.How do you explain mindlessness ultimately creating human consciousness?
- Sir Arthur Balfour