I have to admit I'm not totally versed in Intelligent Design, although a quick perusal of the Discovery Institute Web site leads to a fruitless search for what they actually think happened. It seems they might contend that:
1) Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (bya)
2) Designer "creates" life ~4 bya
3) Micro-organisms undergo micro-evolution for 3.5 bya
4) Designer induces Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago
5) Designer periodically causes macro-evolution over the next 500 million years
6) Designer finally causes macro-evolution from a common ancestor of humans and monkees.
There is actually a variety of viewpoints under the ID umbrella. Some like biochemist Michael Behe accept the general idea of common descent. Others like Bill Dembski would not. Both would agree that proposed Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for ALL the complex diversity of life, namely irreducibly complex microbiological systems and complex specified information. Remember, the ID movement is very young so I wouldn't expect an ambitious account of the entire earth's history anytime soon (spelling out every single instance in which an intelligent agent has ever acted). The immediate goal is to put the idea of intelligent design on the table to explain phenomena which Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for.
I would be interested if the ID (intelligent design) people made some specific hypotheses based on their theory for particular instances of evolution. Like why did the "designer" wait 4.5 billion years before bringing about humans?
Speculating into why
the "designer" did things the way "he" did is not the goal of the scientific
program of design. Such belongs to philosophy
and ultimately perhaps theology
. ID is interested in formulating testable criteria in identifying the work of an intelligent agent(s).
Science is judged by publishing in scientific journals: while ID people cite a number of articles, none of them actually explain the theory of ID.
Not quite true. They have begun writing books and articles that do just that. The Design Inference
by Dembski discusses the theoretical criteria for establishing intelligent agency.
Unless we accept the idea that the science community is actively suppressing ID because of some atheistic, materialistic conspiracy, we are forced to conclude that those articles don't exist because their science is faulty.
Wow, do you really doubt this? The Darwinian establishment is and has been dominated by metaphysical naturalists (at the very least, by methodological naturalists) for decades. Such a philosophical mindset is diametrically opposed to the possibility of a transcedent intelligence which is capable of acting in the material universe. The Darwinian creation myth is the reigning paradigm in our secular society and is defended with great zeal by those who go to great lengths to dismiss a priori
ANYTHING that might smack of a Creator. By their sheer numbers and positions entrenched in secular academia, one could say there is at least an ipso facto
"conspiracy" among Darwinists to suppress any movement that could represent a potentially competitive paradigm to their pet theory. (In addition to that, the ID movement is relatively new which could be another reason for the apparent lack of peer reviewed articles.)