I think ID might have some validity, but I'm not sure what kind of empirical tests can be used to test it.

The little I have read about it, seems like it might have interesting applications and insights if true. It seems to borrow some ideas from Computer Science and that interests me a lot (my Majors for BSc were Computer Science and Zoology).

Basically it brings the whole idea of information being organized at different levels into play. (cf. Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter). Understanding a computer program simply at the machine code level as 0's and 1's can only explain so much, but the "true" meaning of a program can only be understood at a higher level (e.g. looking at the source code or at the program actually running on a computer). Music is more than just the individual notes.

I think that one prediction we can expect from ID would be that in biology, we should see more organization at higher levels of information than simply explainable by the two driving factors of evoltionary theory, i.e. random mutations and natural selection. However, I have no idea how to go about this. E.g. if they were able to somehow distinguish between the predictions of ID and ESS, the different predictions could be tested.

My point is that in science, we are looking at nature at the "machine code level". Sometimes saying that it tells us all there is to know about how nature works. ID suggests that there would be higher levels of explanation if Intelligent Design was part of how things came to be. My questions is: how would we be able to test for this? Until such testing can be done, ID isn't even an hypothesis. However, the whole idea of the different levels of organization being explicitly stated can have many applications e.g. in Ecology when looking at individuals, populations and communities and how it fits together.