I embrace Intelligent Design theory as a valid scientific research paradigm that has decisively refuted Neodarwinism, which was the only conceivable naturalistic explanation for the origin of biological complexity. As intelligent agency is the only known source for specified information, the infusion of information by an intelligent agent outside of the system is the best explanation for biological complexity and diversity. Because of independent philosophical arguments for classical theism and historical arguments for the truth of Christianity, I believe that the intelligent designer was the God of the Bible. Even though, Intelligent Design theory is in principle compatible with universal common descent and guided evolution, I personally became more and more skeptical of common descent and meanwhile rather tend towards special creation (preferably in the "womb" of a parental organism). I see no scientific reasons to dispute the age of the universe and the Earth, or the origin of the geological column.
As a scientist, who should follow the evidence wherever it leads, I came to doubt and finally reject the naturalistic Neodarwinian paradigm of unguided evolution via a purely mechanistic process of chance (random mutation, sexual recombination, genetic drift) and necessity (natural and sexual selection). Therefore, I signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. Even before my conversion to theism, I became convinced that only a goal-directed (teleological) process, either with laws of biological form (structuralism) or with non-random adaptive macro-mutations, can explain the evidence. This assumption is also compatible with and supported by the discontinuous fossil record. Therefore, I totally agree with the views in Stephen C. Meyer's book "Darwin's Doubt".
My rejection of unguided evolution was originally not at all motivated by religion, but by some very convincing and unrefuted scientific arguments from Intelligent Design proponents, based on population genetics (Richard Sternberg), microbiology (Michael Behe), and molecular biology (Douglas Axe). These arguments emphasize the waiting time for coordinated mutations, or the isolated islands of functionality in a vast search space, which strongly limit the capability of a Neodarwinian process.
Concerning the origin of life and the first replicator I consider all naturalistic explanations as wanting and inadequate, and strongly support the conclusions in favor of design presented by Stephen C. Meyer in his excellent book "Signature in the Cell".
No, Intelligent Design theory is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo, but purely an empirical scientific method to detect the traces of intelligent agency in biological organisms. I concur with the atheist philosopher Bradley Monton that Intelligent Design is not religion but a valid scientific approach.
The term Theistic Evolution is not clearly defined, and often rather represents an euphemism for Neodarwinism with a gratuitous God, implying a kind of Deistic Evolution, in which God creates the diversity of life by establishing an unguided process. I consider this as scientifically and theologically problematic, and incompatible with scripture.
I strictly separated all my activities in favor of Intelligent Design and Christian apologetics from my professional work when I still worked as a museum scientist at SMNS. My endorsement of Intelligent Design and Christianity is exclusively my private point of view and is neither shared by my former colleagues at SMNS nor by the co-authors of my paleontological publications, who to my best knowledge generally subscribe to the mainstream paradigm of Neodarwinism or Synthetic Theory of Evolution!
Also after my resigning from my job at SMNS I am still actively working as a paleontologist and publishing my scientific work in peer-reviewed journals. My ID-related research will be published in appropriate journals that are open to design conclusions.