As for the “God of the gaps” charge, the basic objection is that ID is an argument from ignorance, based upon what we don’t know.
It’s one of those occasions in biology (not rare) when the term “intelligent design,” despite other merits, falls flat as a description.
Biological development is either the result of an unintelligent material process or a process guided by a mind, aka intelligent design.
Rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle, some Darwinists are hoping to get around irreducible complexity by verbal tap dancing.
On the subject of evolution, the scientific “consensus” depends on maintaining the our forgetfulness of Charles Darwin’s great partner, rival, and challenger.