This is a step toward what I am seeking, but you phrase it in the third person. Do you accept the findings of mainstream biology, other than "blind natural selection"? Is this the seni-official stance of the ID movement?
From this website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): Biological and Ecological Sciences in the FY 2005 Budget:
"... funding for non-medical biology ... accounts for only 3 percent of all federally supported life science funding."The National Science Foundation (NSF) remains the principal federal supporter of the biological and ecological sciences, providing 65 percent of the academic funding for non-medical biology. The NSF proposed budget for FY 2005 includes a 2.2 percent ($13 million) increase in funding for the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) to bring it to a total of $600 million.
That $600 million is broken down into Molecular and Cellular Biosci, Integrative Biology & Neurosci, Environmental Biology , Biological Infrastructure, Emerging Frontiers, Plant Genome Research. Seems to be non-medical. Here's a table with a breakdown of those expenditures by category: R&D in the National Science Foundation.
If that $600 million is 65% of non-med funding, the total (including stuff from the Agriculture Dep't, forestry bureaucracies, oceanic research, etc.) is about $900 million. That's a nice number. But it's only from federal funding. There is a large amount of industrial funding, from biotech and pharmaceutical firms for example. There is, of course, no creationism/ID research program of any kind.
But let's stick with what the feds spend, because that's where the objection seems to lie. If there are, say, 100,000 scientists and technicians working in such research, that comes to ...$9K per person. Incredible riches!