Let me tell you what’s funny. What’s funny is the fact that physicists can see proof of ID, but biologists cannot.
Biologists study an aspect of nature that is “higher level” than what physicists study (in the sense that organic matter is made up of basic matter), hence ID should be even easier for them to see — but they are blind to reality.
I suggest you read Hugh Ross, Paul Davies, Fred Hoyle, or any of a number of other physicists for an explanation of the exquisite fine tuning of the basic physical parameters of the universe which essentially proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe was designed.
I’ll take a wild guess that your definition of proof is rather different from mine.
The "fine tuning" or Anthropic Principle just means that a universe with slightly different parameters would not permit the development of intelligent life. But this doesn't mean that the universe is designed. Maybe there are other universes that have no intelligent life. Maybe there are other reasons that parameters have to be set the way they are to produce a functional universe.
I do not think the majority of modern physicists believe in ID because the majority of modern physicists are not Biblical literalists.
Are you defining ID or Design as the equivalent of Biblical Creation?
Since I have no problem letting physicists do physics, I have no need to read your selection of books. It is you that is challenging the fundamental concepts of biology without understanding them.