They don't have to make such a claim, as that's not the point.
That *any* distributions are intelligently designed means that you can't rule out ID as a potential cause for their origin.
You can't honestly claim that ID is "unscientific."
You can't honestly claim that ID is "untestable."
You can't honestly claim that ID is "unfalsifiable."
...not when ID is shown to be responsible for *some* instances.
> That *any* distributions are intelligently designed means
> that you can't rule out ID as a potential cause for their
> origin.
Quick, you better tell the guys at SETI!
They've been ruling out a large number of very organized signals as naturally occurring rather than artificial signals of intelligence.
> You can't honestly claim that ID is "unscientific."
ID is worse than wrong. It's useless. Neither it (generically) nor ANY of its proponents have put forward a single testable, falsifiable hypothesis for a phenomenon that can't be adequately (even better) explained by the dominant paradigm.
Does this "prove" that they're wrong?
Not necessarily, but it does relegate them to the realm of speculation until such time as they do.
Let's take a fairly recent example: special relativity pissed off a lot of physicists. Einstein took a LOT of flack for his paper. But he said: Hey, if I'm right, when you put up clocks on a pair of satellites accelerating away from each other, when you look at the clocks again, they'll be different.
It was testable.
He was right.
When the IDers come up with something similar, do let us know.
Until then, throwing stones at evolution is NOT a sufficient argument for ID.