Hi Sebastian,
Did we meet when I visited Sweden on a lecture tour, about 13 years ago?
TE / EC and ID are indeed compatible – depending on how one defines TE and ID. Mike Behe, for instance, holds to TE (understood as universal common descent) because he defines ID as “design is empirically detectable.” Historically, Alfred Russel Wallace defended a form of TE & ID, compelling Darwin to object to Wallace in a letter that he had killed their child: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-6684.xml
Most TEs, however, also hold to methodological naturalism (MN), which rules out design as a scientific matter. To my mind, MN is the real dividing line between ID and other ideas.
I’d like very much to have your thoughts on my reply paper to Churchill and Murray, which I hope to post a link to shortly.