In a discussion of the future of arguments with creationists and/or ID advocates, someone said there were no new arguments from them. Here is my response, from an email. It is mostly about the sort of ID arguments that I have paid most attention to.
There have been attempts to come up with new versions of Dembski's arguments, from the Marks-Ewert-Holloway "Design Inference" axis. But they are all somewhat vague and cannot be made explicit without it becoming clear how weak the arguments are. Marks and Dembski have had an argument that on average "evolutionary searches" do no better than random guessing. But they could do that only by including among the "evolutionary" searches as many that actively tried to get a bad result as there were ones that tried to get a good result. Holloway and others also put forward arguments that Algorithmic Specified Complexity that is high because things are unusually non-complex (huh?) would be very rare among all possible bitstrings. But they left it unclear why evolution should in some sense be trying to achieve that, and they made no argument about what natural selection would do with that measure. There is also some rigorous math from George Montañez of that group on how to unify a whole bunch of measures of specified complexity -- without ever exploring whether any of them help make an argument against the effectiveness of evolutionary processes. There are also works by Marks and co. on "active information", which is, however, information that can be put into the genome by natural selection, so not at all a refutation of its involvement.
So ... they're trying, and doing lots of very mathy things, and these can get cited by creationists and other ID advocates as powerful mathy disproofs of the effectiveness of evolutionary processes, as long as no one really looks inside the argument to see what it actually shows. And so far they have not dotted the i's and crossed the t's in any way that actually argues against natural selection being able to result in adaptation.
There's also a recent discussion at Josh Swamidass's site Peaceful Science of a video in which Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe present "ID 3.0". Many of the commenters conclude that it is vaporware. I must have missed 2.0 as well.
What do people see out there that would qualify as a new, and possibly even valid, ID argument?