As it stands, ID refuses to make commitments about auxilliary hypotheses "“ with major proponents often dismissing the demand for them as unwarranted.

Because they are in fact not warranted. Many ID testable hypothesis such as Wells paper, do not really involve motive. Meyers's paper is simply based on the observation that we only have experience of intelligent agents generating specificed complexity.

Some ID hypothesis require motive to further examine the hypothesis, such as the hypothesis that the nitrogenase was designed to terraform the earth.

None of this means that ID is pseudoscience, there is no justification for that assertion.

It has no heuristic for research, and nor can it develop one without developing clear auxilliary hypotheses. U

I already showed you a clear heuristic for research found here . Please do not repeat these assertions in light of the fact that a clear heuristic does exist, and that many ID hypothesis do include motive , what you call "auxilliary hypotheses".

As it stands, ID refuses to make commitments about auxilliary hypotheses - with major proponents often dismissing the demand for them as unwarranted. It has no heuristic for research, and nor can it develop one without developing clear auxilliary hypotheses. Unlike Lakatos, I do not call a discipline pseudo science just because it is degenerating; but only if it is so structured that logically it cannot become a progressive research program, or if its proponents handle all counterexamples by conventionalist strategies, ignoring the examples, and incorrectly stating the known facts in a way more consistent with their theory. ID is pseudoscience on the first ground, YEC on the second.

Here's a nice quote that maybe you'd like to draw a lesson from:

"where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes."