This is, of course, false. Whoever you quoted from didn't do a very good job of researching things.
There are no predictions above other than those that are the same as ordinary biology predicts. What would distinguish ID from ordinary biological predictions? Just creating another (and more complex) theory that predicts the same things isn't very interesting.
I seem to have lost the point of the thread after 900+ posts. Has anyone addressed the question of who designed the designer? Or is this all about GoddiditbecauseIsaidso? And anythingIdontunderstandmustbemagic?
“And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of complex specified informational molecules in living things. The opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ----is NOT chance ----which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of much (or at least some) of the complex specified information in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures. “