I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved. Is it, or is it not doable? If it is just do it. A clear explanation of how a particular structure/function evolved amounts to falsification of the hypothesis that it illustrates irreducible complexity. A sufficient number of such refutations will convince the public. Or is it too complex for the public to understand?
Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Individual cases of 'irreducible complexity' can be falsified, but ID can't, because, as you say, ' new "unsolved" cases can continually be found'.
It's the old transition fossil paradox. If we find a form C intermediate between A and B, we've replaced one gap (between A and B) with two (between A and C, and C and B). So, Dembski argued, when we found that the flagellum wasn't irreducibly complex because parts of it are homologous to the type three secretory system, then the TTSS is irreducibly complex.
Infinite regress.
This is a slow process, and the biology community is not holding its breath until Behe's challenges are met. If he were intellectually honest, he would be working to disprove his own claims. That's what scientists do. You don't say that something can't be done and then sit on your thumbs waiting for someone else to show that it can be done.