Well, the problem is tha before it can find 'other theories', it first has to be a theory itself. It has the following items it has to do to become a credible science.
1) It has to have explanitory power greater than the logical fallacy of 'This appears to be too complex to have formed naturally, therefore someoen must have designed it'
2) It has to have evidence for it that is not merely an attack on evolution. Pointing out unknowns in one theory does automatically make another viewpoint correct. It has to be able to come up with evidence all it's own.
3) It has to make testable predictions that distinguish it from other theories (in this case the theory of evolution).
4) It has to have the explanitory power over the information we already have.
So far, the number of points that I.D. has from above is zero. It makes no predictions. It explains none of the data basides saying 'We don't know therefore intelligent designer'.
It does have a lot of fancy words, with destractions. Look at the 'information' theory of demeski. He has come up with a new 'law' of information. Unfortunatly for Demski, the 'Law of conservation of information' doesn't seem to be anything but gobbley gook. It is not testable. It is just 'required' for him to try to explain things.. and from a scientific point of view, explains nothing.
™ Version 4.2
