They have to be "predictions" that are somehow different from what we'd expect if they organisms had come about naturally. Otherwise, you might as well also include the prediction that "the designed organism will reside on Earth", too.
Why would the predictions have to be different? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here.
Because if ID doesn't predict any details that aren't covered by present theories, then it's not explaining anything any better than present theories. It brings nothing to the table. It is empty. That was my point with the "organism will reside on Earth" part. We could add "the organisms will be Carbon-based" as well. That wouldn't be a relevant prediction, either, so it would fit right into your list as well.
Here's an example of what I mean, with flat-Earthism. As a scientific hypothesis
, it predicts that we can walk along the surface of the Earth as though it were flat. But the competing "round-Earth" hypothesis also
predicts that we should be able to walk along the Earth as though it were flat. So the prediction of being able to walk on a fairly flat surface of the Earth isn't a useful prediction
in favor of flat-Earthism.
Let's say someone makes the further hypothesis, and reasoning, of how a round Earth means that other celestial bodies should also usually appear to be spheroids - expanding the model. Nothing in flat-Earthism says that other celestial objects can't be spheroids, but it's certainly not a prediction of that model or anything that comes from it. So this would be a case where the round-Earth model predicts things about the universe that the flat-Earth model does not. This ends up being a point in its favor.
That's why a theoretical model making unique
predictions is important. If its predictions are not unique, then they don't belong to that model
- they instead belong to some other more general one that encompasses both it and the models that are competing with it. In my example, "ability to walk in a straight line" is a prediction that belongs to neither the round-Earth model nor to the flat-Earth model; it could be said to belong to a "large surface" model that is more general and encompasses both the other models.