Then perhaps you could tell us what the ID position is. From everything I've seen the ID position boils down to three statements.
1. There exists complexity of type X in biological systems.
2. Complexity of type X could not have formed via evolution.
3. Statements 1 and 2 imply that there must have been some intelligence that designed those biological systems containing complexity of type X.
Using the example of this argument that I am most familiar with, namely Behe's irreducible complexity argument, it can be shown that this argument is weak and unscientific. If you are unfamiliar, Behe defines a system as IC if removal of one part of the system results in the system being unable to perform its function.
I won't argue statement 1, namely that there exists irreducible complexity in biological systems. Statement 2, however, is demonstrably false. It is most certainly possible for IC systems to form via evolution. One must simply understand that evolution is not a direct process leading from one state to another, but rather a process that proceeds in fits and starts, sometimes leading to the loss of structures and systems, and sometimes resulting in the coopting of a part of a given system for the performance of a completely unrelated function.
For instance, given a system containing parts C, D and E, the system is IC if removal of C, D, or E results in loss of system function. However, it's possible that C, D and E all evolved separately performing functions completely unrelated to the function of system CDE. If that's the case, then there's no reason to believe that if C, D, and E all separately give a survival advantage to an organism that these couldn't have evolved separately. Furthermore, it's possible that a system evolved sequentially starting with part A, and adding parts B, C, D, and E in subsequent generations, to form system ABCDE. Once this system is in place, parts A and B prove to be redundant and are eliminated by further evolution, yielding our IC system CDE. Therefore, the claim that IC systems could not possibly have evolved is demonstrably false.
As for statement 3, this is where ID leaves the realm of science. Statement 3 is not falsifiable and furthermore does not follow from statements 1 and 2. Eliminating the possibility of evolution does not lead to the conclusion of a designer. Perhaps some other natural process is involved.
It is not falsifiable because it's impossible to conclusively determine that a system wasn't designed. For example, suppose you see 10000 coins scattered about on the floor, seemingly at random. How would you falsify the statement that some person intentionally put the coins in that exact position? We would normally conclude that someone probably spilled the coins from a container and they landed in their current position under only the influence of gravity and friction, but we cannot falsify the notion that someone laid each individual coin in place intentionally.
Similarly, in biological systems there's no test that can determine that a particular system is not designed. If one is willing to put constraints on what a particular hypothesized designer could or would design, then maybe there would be a testable hypothesis. For example, if a claim were made that the designer would never have included lethal alleles in an organisms genome were made, then we would have a testable hypothesis. If lethal alleles are found (which they are), then this claim is falsified, and this version of ID is falsified as well. However, ID proponents are very careful to specify absolutely NOTHING about the characteristics of a designer, so there is no scientific hypothesis of ID.
This is my best understanding of the ID position. It is cerainly and unconvincing and weak argument, and one that is unscientific. If there's somewhere where I have misunderstood or mischaracterized the argument, I am sure you can correct me.
This one paragraph includes three 'possibles'. One for each premise and one for the conclusion. this is nothing more than wild speculation, with no evidence to support any of it. On top of that, you fail to identify even one example where this has actually happened. You call that science; I call it fantasy.