They claim their methods are revolutionary. They claim that all sorts of fields, like archeology and forensic science, use "pre-theoretic" versions of their "design detection" methodology. Yet when it comes to actually applying their methods where they would potentially be useful, what happens?
In fact, in 2003 we published a little paper, "Eight challenges for intelligent design advocates", where we asked ID advocates to prove their silly ideas useful in practice.
Needless to say, not a single ID advocate has come forward with an answer to any of our challenges.
Well, here's another. Recently archaeologists discovered what may be evidence of the earliest sign of humans in what is now Canada.
As the article says, researchers are not completely sure yet. They may have found a stone weir constructed to catch fish, or they may have found a natural, non-human-constructed formation: "A geologist will now study the images to ensure the rocks are not a natural formation..."
Needless to say, there is no sign these researchers are basing their decision on the research oeuvre of William Dembski to decide the question.
But why not? After all, detecting design is what ID advocates say they're really, really good at. Better than all those stupid "materialist" scientists.
So have at it, ID advocates! Volunteer your massive expertise here. Do your investigations. Create your specifications, prove they're independent, tell us what the "rejection region" is, and so forth. Write a paper with your decision about these possible stone weirs. Publish it in the peer-reviewed literature --- you know, a real journal like Science or Nature, not the creationist circle-jerk that is Bio-Complexity. (Try not to be fooled the way Dembski was about the so-called "bible codes".)
What are you waiting for?