[<1/1,000,000th%]

The overwhelmingly majority view remains that no peer-reviewd ID paper has been published. Just ask around. It's pretty much ex cathedra.

That's because no one wants to touch the question of who's the designer. If it's God, this is just Creationism. If it's not God, then who?

If ID is going to go anywhere as a serious body of knowledge, it has to get past this hurdle. Then it has to define "complexity" as something more than "I know it when I see it". And it needs to provide more evidence than "biologists don't know something".

[Heartlander]

This is like saying that evolution must not only get over the hurdle of abiogenesis, but accept abiogenesis and a BCM (Blind Conscious Maker).

Is evolution still secular? It has entered into something it intentionally omits.

[cookcounty]

"That's because no one wants to touch the question of who's the designer. If it's God, this is just Creationism. If it's not God, then who?"

Unlesss they're theologians, why should the "who" make any difference? It would appear beyond the scope of science to ask that question.