No. Although Thatcherite might state this, there is no logical or scientific reason to demand of an ID hypothesis, that supposed design decisions had to have been made for inscrutable reasons. You're assuming something that need not be assumed.
We can see from the various "nature cleverly invented" popularizations of evolution, that the solution space of nature is entirely "scrutable" to us: we understand the optimization path in question, because it's often quite similar to how we would approach similar problems. We also understand that human ID decisions are generally are made for entirely understandable and practical reasons -- and probably never for "inscrutable" ones.
Plausible pathways have been found.
Plausible, maybe. Tested?
No-one has ever proposed that evolution proceeds at an absolutely constant pace.
Careful on the wording -- I didn't say "absolutely constant," I said "slow and gradual," which is a much different concept. And the fact remains: PE was dealing with a perceived problem with the ToE, in comparison to the fossil record. Those folks weren't "shrieking." (At least, I don't think they were....)
ID literature repeatedly states that it places no constraints on the designer. The designer could be anyone or anything, with no implied limits as to powers or motivation. If you want to place constraints on the designer then you'd better say what they are and why you've chosen those constraints, then we'll be able to judge if the designer may have been fiddling with our experiments.
We can see from the various "nature cleverly invented" popularizations of evolution, that the solution space of nature is entirely "scrutable" to us: we understand the optimization path in question, because it's often quite similar to how we would approach similar problems. We also understand that human ID decisions are generally are made for entirely understandable and practical reasons -- and probably never for "inscrutable" ones.
Very true and absolutely nothing to do with ID.