That is contrary to your first statement "anyone really familiar with the subject does not question evolution" - it is impossible to nibble at the details of something you do not even question.
OK, so I sometimes post stuff that is badly worded.
Here's why the two comcepts aren't contradictory. Researchers collect data, generally in response to a widely known problem. It is every researcher's hope to find data the forces a rethinking of some aspect of a theory.
ID doesn't collect data. It doesn't do field research. What is does do is scan published articles looking for unresolved problems. This is a completely different kind of nipping at heels. It contributes nothing. It adds nothing to the sum of knowledge. It is just point out the obvious, that we don't know everything.
Here's a nice google assignment. Find a single instance of a scientific discovery that resulted from the assumption of supernatural actions or psychic phenomena. Tell me how the research was conducted and whether the presence of supernatural action was confirmed.