Proof? All this time I have been saying the standards of science, unless pure math, do not involve "proof." Theories entail data that fits more consistently with the model. Every case where the elements retain ther specificity is evidence that may be inferred as pointing to intelligent design. In every case where we've known for certain that intelligent design has taken place, it entails organizing matter to perform specific functions. It also entails dynamic processes. For certain people to suggest that intelligent design MIGHT be responsible for said organization is innocuous to science in general. But it seems to have a way of tightening the threads on certain philosophical undergarments.
You're right that my use of the word "proof" was a little strong. I should have said verifiable physical behavior predicted by ID that cannot be predicted without ID. But I used "proof" as a short hand.