ID can obviously be "falsified" on a case by case basis. Once you prove (not just provide a "just so" explanation) that a particular system is not too complex to be explained by chemical/biochemical processes (by the way, I am a retired biochemist who, while still working, led a group that included gene-splicers/cloners in order to produce human enzymes for pharmaceutical development) it is no longer irreducibly complex. As a biochemist, I believe this is possible. I actually think it would be stimulating for young potential scientist to be stimulated by in-depth discussion of the complexity of the systems which have not yet been "proven". I simply don't believe that a young person who has the ability and inclination to be a scientist will be "ruined" by a discussion of ID.
Ruined? Not at all. BUT ID doesn't belong in a course that's based on the scientific method, that's trying to teach those youngsters ABOUT the scientific method and it will alter their knowledge and trust of the scientific method. Put it in a philosophy course, or some other non-scientific-method-based class......and discuss to their heart's content. THEN, I would have no problem with it.
It would be sheer hypocrisy to try to teach kids the strict scientific method and then introduce a scientifically baseless hypothesis to be an accepted addition to a proven theory.
BTW, immunologist (mostly protein chemistry right now...playing with MAbs).