Indeed, at this stage ID doesn't have much more predictive power than evolutionary theory, but it does better explain irreducible systems like the eye and the flagella, the existence of intelligence itself, the existence of specified complexity and the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. I prefer to go with the theory that better explains the empirical evidence.
I think you've been given numerous links to transitional fossils, but you just don't accept them as evidence. Mexican standoff there, if you won't seriously deal with the data. Now as for the so-called "irreducible systems like the eye and the flagella," if evolution had an explanation for those, would you then abandon ID?