To answer your first question: Nothing’s wrong with TEs taking any position they like. What’s wrong is for people like Applegate, Collins, etc. to lean on their authority as scientists to imply that they have any special knowledge of deep questions connecting philosophy, theology, and science. If they say, “I don’t think design inferences belong in science, but I’ve spent my scientific life doing purely technical work, and know nothing about the history or philosophy of science, so don’t go by me,” that would be fine. The important thing to me is that, when people are offering an opinion in a field they don’t know, they qualify that opinion appropriately.
So, for example, I don’t enter into disputes here about the technical side of genetics, because I don’t know it. But I do enter into disputes about “what Darwin said” or “what Gould said” or “what Shapiro said” or “what Behe said”, where I know the relevant texts. I will talk about the history and epistemology of science, because I have been reading world-class scholarship in those areas for 40 years now. On the other hand, when some TE leaders carelessly lump design inferences in with “discussions of purpose, value, and meaning,” they show that they haven’t thought through the epistemological questions nearly carefully enough, and thus disqualify themselves from serious public discussion. If they want to say those things in the neighborhood bar (though I doubt most of them ever frequent bars), that would be fine; in that setting, improvised BS is socially acceptable. But not in a setting where there are Ph.D.s in the room who have done doctorates on the relationship of religion and science.
To answer your second question: Where have you been? I have discussed my disagreement with TE leaders over this question and other religion/science questions for years, about 8 or 9 years on BioLogos, and about 5 years on Hump of the Camel. Look up my columns on Hump of the Camel.
What we are discussing at the moment is not the validity of ID, but TE positions on methodological naturalism, NOMA, demarcation criteria, design inferences, etc. My remarks here are focused on these things.