Help me out wide...
Why, in discussions about ID, is the a discussion about the designer off limits? It's fine, in Behe's estimation, to infer design from that which is irreducibly complex, but there is a firm refusal to discuss the nature of the designer. Why do you think that is?
I would be extremely interested in a good argument as to why we can infer design but not discuss the designer.
Probably because the design (if it is proven to be a design) does not necessarily provide definitive information about the designer.
The designer is not necessarily God according to the Judaeo-Christian definition, for example.
It's the Watchmaker Mystery. A group of professors stand around a table, looking at a watch on it, trying to understand how it got there. But none are allowed to say there might have been a Watchmaker.