With respect to Intelligent Design, there are some interesting arguments made, but to date no truly satisfying scientific experiments, is my understanding.
It's worse than that. There's no coherent ID theory to do experiments on. Irreducible complexity has been alleged in flagella, blood clotting, etc, and almost immediately shot down by rather convincing demonstrations that there are animals (respectively bacteria with a type 3 secretor system, dolphins) that get along fine with part of the alleged IC system missing. So it's not ID. Peer review would have spared him this embarassment.
I don't think ID will get anywhere in the scientific community until Behe, Dembski, or someone actually starts submittig papers for peer review. And then it depends on the papers. The popular ID literature is very far from convincing, at least to me. And only a tiny percentage of scientists take it seriously at the present time.
The reason people like Behe don't get a "peer review" is because those who control such reviews are evolutionists who cannot stand to have anyone challenge their little religion.