IMO, an entailment of the scientific theory of ID as it pertains to biological evolution, is that at least one of the following occurs: (1) directed variation, and/or (2) artificial selection/maintenance, and that such processes produce outcomes that are detectable as the product of directed/artificial input. (Note: these are posited as entailments of ID theory as it relates to biological evoloution, not origin-of-life or cosmological fine-tuning. If ID is involved in biological evolution, it seems to me it must be involved in either the variation or selection process in some way; otherwise, we’re talking about the origin of a life form.)
Directed variation may include the insertion of extra-species genes or other systemic instructions, the application of a system to control variation parameters while taking advantage of random variation ( a directed variation process); genetic recombination, etc.; artificial selection (selective breeding) might also include maintaining an environment that can support artificially selected organisms.
It is a fact that humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.
It is a fact that recently humans have been directly manipulating the genetic structure of organisms.
Artificial selection and/or directed variation are known intelligently designed evolutionary processes that factually exist.
We know there exist ID processes and mechanisms in evolution – humans have been utilizing them in biology for thousands of years. We also know that human ID evolutionary tactics have produced outcomes that would not exist without their involvement and maintenance. The only question is if there is evidence of ID in biology not known to be associated with humans. ID advocates claim there is such evidence, such as irreducibly complex structures, semiotic systems and complex, specified, functional objects and systems such as protein key/lock mechanisms, that are beyond the capacity of Darwinian (RM&NS) evolutionary forces to produce and which require intelligence to construct and maintain through a design, assembly and possibly testing process. ID advocates argue that the generation of such biological artifacts cannot be accomplished, even in principle, by any non-intelligent process, and that the only current, viable explanation we have for such features is ID, which in humans can produce similar artifacts. Humans, however, are not known to have been present during the timeframe where these features originated.
One can dismiss that this evidence supports ID; one can argue that Darwinian forces best explain the evidence; but the evidence factually exists.
So, ID factually exists. That ID has been manipulating biology for thousands of years is a scientific fact. Evidence for human ID insertions/manipulations of evolution factually exists. ID evolutionary mechanisms are known to exist. The only debate is about the evidence for intelligently designed insertions into the evolutionary process outside of what humans are believed to be responsible for. That evidence factually exists, whether one concludes it supports ID or not.
All of the above is recognizable to any semi-objective person as trivially true and reasonable. As long as anti-ID advocates zealously avoid admitting the trivially true in their pathological need to avoid the term “intelligent design” at all costs for fear of allowing a divine foot in the door (and the inevitable resulting return to the “dark” ages under theocratic rule), meaningful debate is impossible.
[Edited for clarity.]