The ID folks (I usually call them the ID gang) have made their point in the rout of natural selection theory, but, despite the interest of the ‘design inference’ argument, they have produced a theoretical model of design: it remains a metaphysical issue. Unless, of course, we restrict the question to ‘design in nature’ at which point a form of explanation remains to be found. But the expose of biochemical machines as being, if not irreducibly complex, then statistically impossible by natural selection, and ‘more or less’ irreducibly so, because the reduced pieces are irreducibly complex, more or less.
But the rout of the hapless initiates to the Dawkins cult does not forestall the drift of design thinking into a non-religious mode: consider my WHEE: a clear demonstration of a fantastic design in history, the solution to Kant’s Challenge, and a subtle falsification via the data of the Axial Age of the ‘design’ argument in the Old Testament. Ironically the design argument works better outside of theology. In any case, it was always a theoretical folly to think that random evolution could refute design arguments and it remains a puzzle how scientists could have been so fixated by Darwin.
The issue is to understand teleology in scientific terms. WHEE approaches that.