I don't know if this is going anywhere but I'll add my thoughts anyway.
The ID that we have proposed seems, and I'm sure you are going to correct me, to be
1. An idea (it's not a theory in science until there is a vast bank of evidence to back it up) that some things are designed as they could not have happened by evolution.
2. That the question of whether or not something is designed to a large extent depends on the observer. (I find this not only puzzling but would have thought a designer would do whole job and design who organisms rather than play with tiny pieces inside cells)
3. To back it up, the people who invented ID look around at what we know and claim that they find things that match their ID idea - something that you claim is prediction.
Now, to me, this is the sort of thing one might devise while have a few drinks at the pub (or maybe after prayers in church!). It is not the result of years of lab and field work, it is not the result of accumulating lots of evidence. No, it is a 'back or and envelope' idea that's been trying to make the mainstream, at least in schools without the need to waste time on 'doing the science' so it is trying to skip from idea to theory with nothing in the middle. That's precisely why mainstream science rejects it - it hasn't done the work.
Now, Biblestudent, I know you have others to answer but try this when you have answered them.
Do you think that ID is the explanation because it matches your bible? You see there is nothing in ID that talks about the designer or that links the designer to god (any god of course.) So the jump from ID to bible is either a huge leap of faith or it's a jump from bible to something that supports the bible, ID. Which is it, Biblestudent?