Is ID properly pursued?

As someone who vehemently opposes the idea of ID in the science classroom, I do agree that ID would be appropriate for the philosophy classroom. However, I have a strong suspicion that the same parents who are against evolution in public schools would be even more stridently opposed to a philosophy course if they read the textbooks and curriculum. Perhaps. This will probably have to wait for the next generation of ID thinkers. The current crop have made it abundantly clear that they will not be doing ID research. I can't say that I blame them. ID, in its current form, does not lend itself to scientific experimentation. Actually, you might want to do some research into the beginnings of the Big Bang theory. The main man behind the theory was George Lemaitre. He was a Jesuit priest and fully believed that the BB was a creative act. It could also be argued that the BB theory did garner some skepticism based solely on Lemaitre's beliefs, but at the end of the day the evidence was overwhelming and the theory was accepted by a consensus of scientists from every stripe of belief and non-belief. You may want to rethink that.

I'm not familiar with Gauger, but what I have seen of Axe's work it is completely in the vein of "evolution can't do it, therefore ID". Even then, Axe makes a poor case. That isn't ID research. It is research on evolution. I have yet to attend a scientific conference where someone stands in front of the crowd and states, "No one has shown how an intelligent designer could do this, therefore it must have evolved". If someone did do that they would be booed off the stage. I agree. All they have is a dislike of evolution and nothing scientific to really pursue.