If you have a well constructed model that produces the kinds of outcomes you are investigating, and if that model closely mimics naturally occurring behavior, then it's a pretty good candidate.
If you wish to compete in this arena, you need to produce a competing model that better mimics the natural phenomenon.
A candidate for what?
If you wish to compete in this arena, you need to produce a competing model that better mimics the natural phenomenon.
The alternate model is that some sort of intelligence played a role in the creation and/or development of life on Earth. That's the hypothesis. (Before we go around in a circle on this, please address the specific points I raised in my 1,000 nickels all heads up example -- specifically, if you came upon a pile of exactly 1,000 nickels all face up, would you assume the pile was natural or created? Please answer that question.)
The theory predicts that such an intelligence could leave traces in features of living organisms that cannot be explained away naturally. (Bnd before we go around in a circle on that point, consider the points I made about drawing distinctions between natural and created in many other fields of science.)
That they haven't found such evidence yet does not mean that ID is not science, any more than the fact that they haven't found traces of past or present life on Mars and aren't quite sure what to look for yet means that looking for life on Mars isn't science. Personally, I think it's wishful thinking and a waste of money but I wouldn't cliam that it's not a legitimate subject to investigate or that doing so isn't science.