It's also an opinion that ID lacks facts. Order and complexity exist. Scientists use it, investigate it, and depend on it every day. If it weren't for the order that exists in this universe, science would be incapable of being done. I don't understand why scientists deny that it's evidence of intelligence or design and yet expect us to believe that what they do in the lab is intelligent and involves design (in the form of experiments). Surely they expect us to believe that what they're doing in the lab shows both.
My understanding is that ID has made functional predictions which are verifiable (and have been corroborated). For example, ID researchers made the prediction that all genetic material in a chromosome set (the genome)is designed for a purpose. This inclused the so-called "junk-DNA". This appears to have been demonstrated within the last two to three years.
ID hypothesizes that biological systems are the product of intention rather than luck and law. This hypotheisis is open to be disproved by scientific method. To reject it simply on principle is a philosophical point, but it is not justified by scientific method.
Design is assumed by biochemists who "reverse-engineer" biochemical machines, that is, take apart such systems in search of the "design decisions" that are built into their architecture. Design should be rejected (or accepted) based upon data. It should not be gerrymandered out of science, just because the methodological naturalists get uncomfortable with the concept of a "designer".