Read the article;
..."the arguments advanced by intelligent design theorists rely on neutral principles and facts drawn from mathematics, information theory, biochemistry, physics, astrophysics, and other disciplines. (For a summary of some of ID's principal scientific arguments, see my article in the June 2005 issue of The American Spectator.)"
I've read these, and the argument for ID is not based on science, founded in science nor supported by science. There have been attempts to marshall the arguments using science "jargon," but they fall far short of the mark. For ID to make it as a science it will simply have to do scientific research on the topic (although I cannot imagine where one would begin...) and amass credible data.