ID as a guiding principle for research is a double edged proposition. Unlike the mechanistic approach, ID assumes some form of “master plan” or “central organizing principle” that defines life. It becomes not unlike a Philosopher’s Stone and runs the risk of being every bit as quixotic, or it may help. That would be “help” in the sense of being better able to control, understand and predict Nature’s way.
Alternatively, ID can cause intellectual laziness. Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
Now, for the disturbing part. ID does not preclude Darwinism. How we think about the relationships between randomness and order in Nature is really piss poor superficial. Reverse thermodynamics there is a little dabbling, Chaos Theory, maybe a little better, but there is no developed system of thought on the subject. Unless someone else knows about something...
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
Werner Heisenberg
/One of my favorite quotes
//consider the source
Ignoring the possibility that God created it does not preclude from figuring out how it works or got there, or whatever else the physical world can answer.
Frustrated, a researcher throws his hands up and decides God won’t give up that secret.
I don't believe that has happened very frequently, and I don't believe the good ones do that.
For all the previous 2000 years of science, most were devout believers in God. Yet they made fantastic progress.