I'd be interested in this too.
My impression is that there are two methods. Behe's is the easiest. His method is to say, "Gosh! This sure looks too complicated to have evolved through natural selection. It must have been designed!"
Dembski's method takes a little more work. First, you actually look up the research on the origins of some part or system. You note that all these proposals have serious problems, then you state that the only possible option left is that the atoms must have come together through random chance, calculate a probability, and say, "Omigod! Look how small that probability is! It must have been designed!"
I could be wrong; this is based on reading non-IDists descriptions of their works. But if I'm wrong, I have never seen an IDist give a clear explanation of what their method actually is. Any IDists who actually know what they're talking about -- not just parroting some semi-literate apologetics web page, but actually understand Dembski and/or Behe's arguments and methods -- please take the time to inform us. Don't worry about it being too complicated -- we're smart enough to ask questions if something is not clear or needs clarification.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo - also removed gratuitous comment relating to a post in another thread
I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." --
jhuger