The power in ID will reside in how well statements like "If ID were true we should see this, while if ID were not true we should not see this" hold up under observations and experiments.
So far, there isn't much "this" that can be stated for ID.
Behe tried; he tried to say, "If ID were true we should see irreducibly complex things; if ID were not true, we should not see irreducibly complex things." Unfortunately, the second statement is not true. Evolution can also produce irreducibly complex things (according to Behe's orginal definition of irreducible complexity).
Dembski's statement is even more absurd, "If ID were true then there should be things that I cannot figure out in terms of evolution. If ID were not true, then there should not be things that I cannot figure out in terms of evolution."
So we are (still) waiting (not necessarily patiently) for a testable prediction based on ID.
Edited to correct a typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-Sep-2005 11:14 PM
™ Version 4.2