I don't think that was Paul's point. I think he was intending to point out
that ID provides predictions, and failed predictions provide puzzles that
should stimulate research. That reasearh might overturn the theory, but it
is wise to first look for modifications in the theory that might explain
the anomaly, and then try to establish some confidence in those
modifications through further investigation. After all, that's how
advocates of evolutionary theory would respond to a claim that a fact fails
to fit the current theory: that fact indicates that more research is
required to understand why the theory seems to fail in this instance. In
principle the theory could be overturned, but the initial efforts to
resolve a puzzle should logically look for how the theory might need to be
modified, rather than throwing it out and starting fresh.