What ID has done is demonstrated that the ToE has significant problems...it was a criticism of weaknesses in ToE.
The major criticism is that there is not enough time to accomodate the vast complexity evident in the lifeforms all around us.
If your interpretation is true then ID is merely a subset of falsification hypotheses for the ToE, just like any other such subset that evolutionists routinely develop and test. As such, once an ID proponent devises an observable, reproducible test that falsifies a part of the ToE it will be accepted, and either incorporated into a revision of the ToE or force a revolutionary paradigm shift in interpreting all the evidence as a whole. Until that time, however, it has nothing to offer that the ToE doesn't already provide.
In other words, ID will be accepted as soon as it does its own scientific footwork, and stops trying to get over by demanding that it wins by default until the ToE proponents do the job for them.
The criticism is valid or it is not.
The ID math says that it is.
There's some math, so far poorly explained, that says that the ID math isn't all it's cracked up to be.