Design has plenty to tell us and is in fact used in many areas of science – but for whatever reason not biology.
I could say ‘evolution has nothing to offer science’ because nothing has been proven. Man made = ID – Not man made = nature (including man and the universe) This is extremely limiting when we look at the big picture. It is extremely egotistical to assume when we see something so complex and delicate that is not made by man is automatically ‘nature’. It all comes down to choice – God or nature, chance or purpose, and even debating with a mind of random natural occurrence or a mind Designed by Intelligence. (I chose the latter)
I do say ID has much to offer science as a whole.
You'd have more of a point if ID was producing some sort of informative content. Say, if the Discovery Institute actually discovered something. But all they do is try to make what we do know go away.
Well's essay on homology, on a more careful reading, is a typical creationist excursus with the usual melange of quotes, gaps, and controversies. A capsule summary, "It's all a house of cards, so there's room for design!"
Superficially plausible, but the evidence is otherwise. This plus a few other foundational methods have enable science to make tremendous strides. I'd say it compares quite favorably with philosophies and techniques of the past.
I do say ID has much to offer science as a whole.
So far it hasn't been so. Philosophically speaking, how does one tell the difference between design and an unknown natural law?