ID does posit an attribute of the causative agent: It says it's intelligent. It can't go into detail further, because it doesn't have enough data to go on, but since when has that ever disqulified a scientific theory? First you establish something general, and then try, if possible, to get more specific.
This is such an elementary requirement that I would be willing to have ID mentioned in science classes just for the joy of ridiculing it.
That would actually be a good start.
Since always. Theories must have supporting data. The theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and evolution all have large bodies of supporting evidence. A "theory" without data isn't a theory. Intelligent design, therefore, isn't a scientific theory. At best, it is a hypothesis, but more likely it is a conjecture or speculation.
I sometimes wonder if you are just a bot like Eliza, programmed to take statements and turn them around.
To have a theory or hypothesis, you have to predict something that is different or unexpected by the prevailing theories.
This is apparentyly why the bacterial flagellum was chosen as the poster child for irreducible complexity. Unfortunately it isn't irreducible.
Is there anything at all that would make or break the ID hypothesis?