Research has to be replicated. That's why real scientific papers include the assumptions, methods, processes and conclusions in such a manner that anyone in the field can duplicate the research (and hopefully duplicate the results). Every researcher in every field wants to be the one who comes up with that Earth-shattering discovery that will elevate his name to the pantheon of greats and assure him a comfortable place in not only history but his field as well. Finding evidence of God's handiwork would more than suffice.
However, here we run into a slight problem. How does one test for God? What kind of evidence would one look for? The IDers think they've got that one, but they seem to forget they are trying to prove a negative (something could NOT have come about without intervention). This is a losing proposition from the get-go because one can never prove a negative. IDers have yet to come up with a test for the positive evidence of intelligent intervention -- because they cannot define what they are looking for.
I agree. Identifying intelligence is more of a know-it-when-you-see-it sort of thing, not easily quantifiable. ID, therefore, properly belongs in the field of philosophy/religion, rather than scientific inquiry. However, it is equally true that atheists cannot somehow test for a lack of intelligent intervention, so their assertions of such similarly belong outside of real science.