But, they do have them. First of all, the heurism of deliberately looking for explanations that avail themselves of biochemical design engineering principles and perspectives, rather than a false guilt over doing so. The affirmation of apparent design in nature, rather than the nagging reminder to ignore it. Which has resulted, among other things, in the prediction of an ever-decreasing pool of candidates for “junk DNA.” Pseudogenes turn out, often, to have a completely non-intuitive and even transformative role to play in development. In a fair assessment, ID is no more a “science stopper” as is a completely atheistic perspective. As an investigative paradigm, it does not lead one to ignore the evidence.
It’s not fundamentally “wrong,” just because it hasn’t yet done as much as we’d want.