Well, I'm glad you didn't resort to the---"it all just can't be random" critique.
I'm a life scientist (physiology/endocrinology). I admit that in my journeys I've encountered a few (2 or 3) who conduct their research as if they are trying to prove the ToE. The rest, however, are simply seeking data which may shed some light on how a particular phenomenon works. The problem is, because of the requirements of most grant-funding agencies, is that---in the research proposal itself and in the published, discussion section---some form of "relevance to society" must be stated.
Basic science has no preconceived relevance to anything except curiosity, and most scientists are forced to stretch to write such required inclusions. Thus, the "conjecture" part of science (thanks also to the MSM) receives the most attention.
So...
If 'natural selection' ends up selecting 'ID', THEN what????