I don’t think any person who self-identifies as an “ID proponent” is doing anything like that; as I wrote above, I don’t think there is much left of “ID thought” anywhere. But one thing I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to emphasize is that this doesn’t mean that ideas that are (to me) relevant to ID are dead. One clear example is the strong emphasis on design principles in many areas of biology, something I’ve discussed before. Another is the topic of “direction” in evolution.
If the topic is “ID proponents,” then the answers are pretty simple. If the topic is “ID” then they aren’t. What this and other conversations at PS can show us is that ID isn’t a topic that most PS people want to explore. Psychologically, given the damaging influence of the DI, this is understandable. Scientifically, it’s really not.