I do not speak for all ID proponents, but Christians at least do not say that the real world does not provided us with the possibility of discovering any kind of objective way to judge one moral code or moral decision vs. another; it says there has to be a transcendent source and standard for their to be any foundation of morality at all. Mindless Evolution provides no logical basis or accounting or explanation of ethics, rationality or truth. To the extent that atheists engage in rational or moral behavior they owe to the fact that they live in God's universe. But the world-view that denies God is utterly incapable of accounting for the incumbency that one ought to do some things and not others. To say that one can come up with up with good hypotheses for what the best moral codes are presupposes a prior or higher moral standard not in evidence from a non-theistic origin.
But regardless whether God's mind is inscrutable or, um, scrutable, we would still know moral systems by their fruits.
Again, presupposing a prior or higher standard by which to judge the fruits begs the question of that standard and its origin. An impersonal chance or deterministic universe can never account for or explain the origin of moral incumbency.
Cordially,
Sure it can. Actions have real-world consequences. Morality is a tool we use to sustain the type of society that's life-affirming as opposed to destructive. These are real-world effects.
In this world, buying low & selling high leads to more wealth than when you started. This is a true fact about the real world, whether the reason there is such a world is because of some natural process or some supernatural person.
The world is what it is, and acts the way it acts. It won't suddenly become something else if its ultimate cause turns out to be something other than what you currently think it is.