I can’t help wondering whether ID is pointless. Even if there were an intelligent designer, I don’t see that as being of much use to biologists.
Archeologists find pottery in their digs. And they infer that the pottery was designed. This kind of example is sometimes mentioned by ID proponents.
If that archeologist wants to find out more about the pottery, he is going to ask physicists and chemists to examine it. Whether or not it was intelligently designed won’t affect that analysis at all. It will be based on the evidence obtained from the pottery itself. The relation of pottery to design, is that by studying the pottery one can make reasonable inferences about the designers, about their culture and their skills. But, knowing that there was design, doesn’t tell us anything about the pottery itself.
It seems to me that the same would apply to ID and biology. Even if it could be shown that there was an intelligent designer, that would not tell us anything about what we observe in biology. We would still need evolutionary biology to explain the biological processes that we see in action, and we would still be making extrapolations back to the past about common descent, and noticing that what those extrapolations show is remarkably consistent with evidence from the past. I am not seeing where knowledge that there was in intelligent designer would help at all.
If the purpose were to study what biology tells us about the intelligent designer, then maybe there would be a point. But that could be studied even without knowing for sure whether ID is true. In fact, making such inferences about the intelligent designer should help identify where to look for actual evidence of design. So what are the ID proponents waiting for?