[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What would?

That's a question for which I have no easy answer.  Suffice it to say that the problem is with evolutionary theory.  If the same methodology is applied to such theory as its adherants try to apply to ID, gaping holes become quite obvious.  While ID is not perfect, it is an attempt to plug those holes.

ID does not state evolution could not and cannot happen.  Rather it states that such changes are directed rather than done by random chance.

The proponents of evolutionary orthodoxy try to prove evolution is true by assuming it is true.  A catch-22 to say the least.  My conclusion is that any experimentation done by humans along these lines proves the feasibility of ID, but not necessarily the feasibility of evolution.  While the passive observation of such phenomena only show evolution can exist, but does not militate against the ID nature of it.

[Gumlegs]

ID does not state evolution could not and cannot happen. Rather it states that such changes are directed rather than done by random chance.

Any scientific theory must be capable of being falsified. So, using your post as the definition of ID, how would you falsify ID? "If we observe X, then we can rule out direction as the agent of change"?