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,
This is utter nonsense. You don't have to give your religious or philosophical beliefs to do science. All you need is a research proposal that has a likelihood of producing new data. I have been told by ID advocates that the heart and soul of current ID theory is information theory. This not a costly kind of research, and it can be done without any special preconceptions of what is expected.
If you have a research project that requires a supercomputer, you can make one with volunteers, like SETI online. Are you aware of the protein folding project which uses thousands of Internet volunteers?
The basic problem with ID is that it has no hypothesis that can be tested and no research proposals. ID is a parasitic meme that feeds on the research done by mainstream science.
The fundamental mode of ID research is to look at any new research finding and announce that you now have two gaps where you previously had only one.