Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated; most of Behe's examples of it have been shot out of the water. Moreover, ID does not explain, for example, the incredibly disordered nature of the living genome. Humans have 49 non-functional copies of the gene for cytochrome C. Some of them are closer to the cytochrome c gene for rat testis than they are to human cytochrome C. Why did the designer do that?
A substantial part of the genome is composed of transposons, some of which are similar in sequence to retroviruses, sometimes cause congenital deformities, and are present in humans and primates but not in other types of mammals. Why did the designer do that?
Why did the designer introduce point mutations in the proteins of mammals so that they consistently follow a single pattern of relatedness? Why are all bat proteins closer to whale proteins than they are to bird proteins? Wouldn't intelligent design of a bat use materials from a very similar small warm-booded organism, rather than a large marine organism?
So where's the explanatory power?
Link? Proof? Arguments from authority are weak to begin with, and evolutionary biologists have lost what little authority they may have had.
Moreover, ID does not explain... Why did the designer do that?
I don't know? How should these things have been designed? What would a perfectly designed human being looked like?
[One of the funniest Gouldisms was his suggestion that animals should have been given wheels so they could move faster. But how would they move in mud? In snow? Over uneven terrain? How could they swim and run?
What's the difference between God and evolutionary biologists? God knows that he isn't an evolutinary biologist.]
I don't know whether these examples represent disorder or not. But I will concede that disorder appears to exist in nature. But this apparent disorder in nature does not contradict the idea that Creation is generally if not overwhelmingly good and ordered. First of all, this world is not necessarily the "best of all possible worlds." Secondly, the Fall is generally considered to have introduced disorder into the universe. Certainly this is true regarding human nature. The human will is universally imperfect. Regarding apparent disorder in nature in general, there are several permissible speculations. The natural world may have been corrupted after the Fall, or our natural faculties were so damaged that things which hurt us now (the thorns on a rose) did not hurt us before the Fall. But generally, the universe overwhelmingly bespeaks design, and where there is a design there must be a designer.
So where's the explanatory power?
Apparent disorder in nature does not contradict intelligent design, as shown above. However, intelligent design better explains irreducibly complex systems like the human eye, and Behe's examples, than a theory which posits transitional forms which benefit from incomplete transitional features. Secondly, ID better explains the fossil record than evolutionary theory. Stasis in species is overwhelmingly the rule in the fossil record. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and disappear in the same way. Transitional forms exist only in artists' depictions.