C'mon! You can think of a falsification.
I mean if someone did find one ‘human' skull 3 billion years old, what would you say?
I knew you could!
To answer your question, it depends. Just for one thing, it depends on whether or not it turns up in Paluxy River, TX and is found by Carl Baugh.
In Darwin's day, the picture presented by the fossil record, the geologic column, and the then-known extant species had just crystalized enough for he and Wallace to see what is going on. 150 years later, it's getting unlikely--a little late in the game--for the trends in the evidence becoming apparent then to reverse. But an apparent 3-billion year old skull would demonstrate that something we think we know is wrong.
Pssst… Let me let you in on a little secret… ID is not stealth Creationism ...
Is it supposed to be science? There's never in history been a science with less intellectual content.
Yes, actually I can… As I have stated, I see ID as a ‘theory of everything’ but I will go into the world of biology (and psychology) – specifically, you. Let’s see if you believe in some kind of intelligent design.
Yes Vade, you are the next contestant on:
Who wants to be a Naturalist?
Question one:
Are variation, mutation, and natural selection ‘alone’ responsible for DNA’s intelligent grammar-like code, error correction, and beyond that – your own intellect?
Question two:
Does behavior arise out of the interaction between individuals with their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections?
Question three:
Is there is no finally correct way to behave, or finally justifiable goals, but only the desires and intentions that currently constitute us, all of which may change as human nature and cultures change?
Question four:
In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent, what do you do?
Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.
So they say. I keep running into democrats who sincerely insist that their party isn't a pack of socialists. And when you start to offer them evidence, they react in shock: "Oh no, we're not socialists. We just want to do nice things. We want society to be fair. We want social justice." But it adds up to socialism, and it's never nice, or fair, or just. And just as socialism has its usefull idiots (Stalin's delightfully honest term), so does ID. Alas, there's really no way to debate with some of these folks.
[Note for the especially retarded]: I am not claiming that ID is socialism. It's just an analogy -- something you're not good at -- to illustrate that a movement can have lots of confused and clueless followers.]