From IDEA:
FAQ: Wouldn't intelligent design theory be the end of scientific investigation--a "science stopper?"
If we seek truth, design is progress for science. Inferring design in no way stops science from achieving its goal to understand nature. Like any new paradigm, design opens up new doors to research. Many evolutionary biologists might not yet see these doors because they have been trained to think under the paradigm of evolution. That does not mean design could not bear fruit for science, once science is willing to "retool" to accept design. Much work could be done trying to learn to discriminate between design and evolution in fields such as biochemistry, paleontology, the origin of life, systematics, and genetics. William Dembski has identified a number of scientific and philosophical fields where design can contribute. Design is not intended to "subsume" all science and will not force science to conclude that everything is designed if we apply the mechanisms of detecting carefully and properly.
"Like any new paradigm, design opens up new doors to research."
Ahh.. So ID is a paradigm now. Let's see now hypothesis, theory, law. Hmmm... don't see paradigm anywhere in there.
By definition, a paradigm is a set of assumptions and it really goes to the root of ID's fault. It assumes an outcome and works to prove that assumption. It's science turned on it's head.