Here is an excellent piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis that ID is a science stopper. If it is such a landmark scientific finding, it would be relevant in research and would be cited by those researchers when they publish their findings. However, as David Lampe, Associate Professor at the Department of Biological Sciences at the Duquesne University shows, compared to first-rate scientists, Behe's contributions and influence are paltry at best.
This is one of the tell-tale signs of a pseudoscience: stagnation. Whether it is astrology, chiropractic, or intelligent design, the one thing starkly different from mainstream science is a complete lack of change. One can check a decades-old article from any of those topics and it reads like it was written yesterday. Contrast that to a book on a hard science like astronomy, which is out of date practically the moment it leaves the printers.
So of course ID proponents don't do much science. There isn't much science to do. And with all the royalties from their book sales from all the same nimrods that buy Ann Coulter's dissembling tomes (goose step when you say that), it's easy to see how they might lose the hunger for hard work.