Commonly "Intelligent Design" does not denote anything theoretic, but a political anti-scientific movement aiming to replace science teaching in schools by teaching of religion.

The theoretic parts of ID do not form a single theory, but instead are a dynamic accumulation of ideas, based on the presumption that in the history of mankind at some point a non-earthly power intervened to shape mankind or life or both, and that if we keep looking hard enough, we will find evidence of that, and refute the naturalistic theory of evolution that claims that abiogenesis and evolution species happened as a result of only natural selection (and human breeding efforts maybe).

ID is not a single theory, as demonstrated like this: One part of ID claims that some bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that some blood clotting cascade exhibits irreducible complexity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that the cambrian explosion exhibits diversity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that the universe was fine-tuned to support life which requires an intelligent designer. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, as ID can keep adding new claims about any part of history not being explainable by natural selection.

There is no central claim or prediction that if refuted would refute Intelligent Design.

This is by design, "Intelligent Design" is a label invented by the Discovery Institute, an anti-scientific think tank created, by, funded by and run by creationists aiming to discredit science and pushing for schools to teach religion in science class.

As such, ID authors risk nothing by making outlandish half-baked claims, their books will still sell well in the ID community, and if their claims are refuted, they can just make up new ones, and sell a new round of books. Creationists will pay good money for any such writing because it helps the creationist political agenda.

The busier real scientists would be refuting ever new claims designed at the Discovery Institute, the more ammunition the Discovery Institute would have to support the claim that science is in crisis, that the theory of evolution is being disputed, and that school should stop teaching evolution in science class.

As such, Intelligent Design as funded by the Discovery Institute is seeking to disrupt scientific disciplines by trying to subvert and discredit science in general, and artificially create discussions.

This is all well recognized by experts in other scientific disciplines, who will easily recognize that new so-called "evidence" by ID proponents is nothing but another round of material provided by the creationists working at the Discovery Institute to discredit science.

Commonly "Intelligent Design" does not denote anything theoretic, but a political anti-scientific movement aiming to replace science teaching in schools by teaching of religion.

The theoretic parts of ID do not form a single theory, but instead are a dynamic accumulation of ideas, based on the presumption that in the history of mankind at some point a non-earthly power intervened to shape mankind or life or both, and that if we keep looking hard enough, we will find evidence of that, and refute the naturalistic theory of evolution that claims that abiogenesis and evolution species happened as a result of only natural selection (and human breeding efforts maybe).

ID is not a single theory, as demonstrated like this: One part of ID claims that some bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that some blood clotting cascade exhibits irreducible complexity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that the cambrian explosion exhibits diversity not explainable by natural selection. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, because ID can then add a part that the universe was fine-tuned to support life which requires an intelligent designer. If this was refuted, would ID be refuted?

No, as ID can keep adding new claims about any part of history not being explainable by natural selection.

There is no central claim or prediction that if refuted would refute Intelligent Design.

Publications about ID are not integrated well with actual science fields. While ID authors will cite scientific publications to add weight to their arguments, ID authors are not being cited. That means ID is not adding value to other fields of science. There are no experiments conducted by ID authors that have advanced our understanding of nature or history.

Since ID proponents reject the findings of mainstream science, their writing is divisive and incongruent with the rest of science, while being congruent with Creationist religion.

This is all well recognized by experts in other scientific disciplines.