Their actions don't show it though. Most of their written stuff consists of whining and there isn't much attempt on their part to get published in peer-reviewed journals.
I agree that their actions up to October 25, 2002 did not comport with my assertion that they want more, not less, research. In fact, they appeared to be floundering.
But on that date, Dembski gave the keynote address to a conference for "Research and Progress in Intelligent Design" at Biola University. The object of the conference was to assess status and direction of the Intelligent Design movement, and his keynote address laid out what would be necessary to become a Disciplined Science.
I have taken that as a turning point, and the movement is changing focus from legal argument to finding its place in scientific research, i.e. more research.
Sadly, I haven't yet seen them make the specific hypotheses I'd like to see - the ones I've discussed on this thread. Nevertheless, related research continues, and I'm confident that the integrity of the scientists involved will offset any prejudice they may have.
IMHO, it would have been better for the I.D. scientists to have proposed these very projects. As it is, the best they could say at a favorable conclusion is "we told you so" - and that would not sit well with many, because it was never made a formal hypothesis.