I would say that is a subject for more advanced students of ID.
Advanced students of ID?
That's a joke if I ever heard one!
There is no field of study known as ID. ID is a conclusion seeking justification rather than a field which is being studied.
With ID, the proponents all agree that Goddidit, although they can't say that--they have to couch their religious beliefs as "the intelligent designer didit." But there is no investigation into who the intelligent designer was (that's religion), nor is there investigation as to how the intelligent designer designed (that's religion too).
All ID can to is look for "what ifs" and "gaps" that seem to support the
a priori conclusion that is ID. When science explains their "what ifs" with natural causes, and closes the "gaps" with new knowledge, IDers just scramble around to find more "what ifs" and more "gaps." They don't have to be internally consistent, or even make sense, they just have to be enough to raise doubts about science and the scientific method in the minds of those who don't know any better--and school boards.
Because ID is a political movement "designed" following the
Edwards U.S. Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s which eliminated creation "science" from the schools. It was "designed" to give a scientific-sounding aura to religious belief, but has evolved into a general anti-science movement as well. The Dishonesty Institute is probably the leading player in this phase of the movement.
But "advanced students of ID?" What nonsense!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2