I decided to take on this argument based on the fact that I hear this question asked a lot. Usually the person asking this question is trying to discredit ID and or Creation progress. I find this argument seriously flawed and will explain why.
I want to first begin with a quote from an evolutionist named Mark Isaak and the response by T. Wallace from the web page http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp :
"Isaak insists that "it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."
Isaak's impressive confidence seems to be based in part on his inability to differentiate between "observing" an event and "interpreting evidence" to support a hypothesized event. Even so, the empirical data largely fails to support his claims. The fact is, evolution has NOT been observed, and its chief proponents don't deny this. Furthermore, contrary to Isaak's assertion, evolution's predictions regarding the fossil record, anatomy, genetics, and biogeography have NOT been verified with "overwhelming" support, contrary to Isaak's bold claims, but are more often challenged by the facts, as we shall see.
And in fact, using Isaak's own logic in fairness to the Creationists whom he wishes to discredit, one can just as easily (and much more accurately) state: "It would be wrong to say that creation hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Creationism makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting Creationism is overwhelming."
Therefore, based on Isaak's statement you can see how ID and Creationism can gather evidence in the exact same manner.
Secondly, most of the evidences for ID seems to contradict Neo-Darwinism; Neo-Darwinist tend to whine that all ID science does is try to disprove rather than produce an alternate hypotheses. This to me seems quite contradictory when assessing the claims of ID and the claims of Neo-Darwinist. So, let's cover some of the predictions ID makes since this seems to be something ID is incapable of doing. Tristan Abbey writes:
"ID makes quite a few predictions, including, for example, that allegedly functionless "junk" DNA does, indeed, have a function. The existence of more irreducibly complex systems, a lack of precursors to the Cambrian phyla, a strong resistance in proteins to evolution, and functions for organs and systems thought to be "vestigial" and functionless are further predictions that ID can make. One recent hypothesis articulated by ID theorists Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzales and recently reviewed in Nature is the idea of a "privileged planet," one finely-tuned both for life and scientific discovery." http://www.idurc.org/archive/laddis.htm
" Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156
Intelligent Design uses the same scientific method used for evolutionary theories, observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154
Even more compelling is the progress made by ID over the last 10 years which includes: design detection, biological information, evolvability, evolutionary computation, technological evolution, irreducible complexity in biology, natural vs. artificial design in bioterrorism, Steganography and biosteganography, cosmic design, SETI, philosophy of mind and autonomy vs. guidance. These 12 things can be further explained here http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1180
I cannot see how ID could not be an alternative to the failings of Neo-Darwinist predictions. Such examples would be 1)the failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features. 2)The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. 3) The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent. 4) The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. 5) The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. For more on this visit http://www.judgingpbs.com
I must admit, I think there is an underlying prerogative with those that claim ID science has not made predictions or is pseudoscience. I think this because if one were to research the contributions of ID proponents they would realize their assumptions are false. Either way maybe those that won't explore for themselves the progress of ID, are the very ones Neo-Darwinist try so hard to influence. So I urge an open mind into the understanding of this debate rather than using repetitive arguments which lack any substantiation.
For an excellent example from ID advocate Jonathan Wells and his TOPS method which he uses to research cancer can be seen here http://www.iscid.org/papers/Wells_TOPS_051304.pdf
You may visit Biologic Institute, a research lab opening new frontiers for scientific discovery. Biologic Institute shows the value of intelligent design for the practice of biological science and tests specific empirical claims of neo-Darwinism, intelligent design, and other theories of biological origin. http://biologicinstitute.org