"So would it be accurate to say that at present science is not able to either confirm or deny the validity of the ID argument?"
That one issue of it, yes. The major problem I have with the ID argument is that it gives results that are indistinguishable from those of the evolutionary argument, but adds the extra assumption of a "designer" that itself cannot be investigated, tested or confirmed scientifically. Parsimony alone would require that we accept evolution rather than complicate the issue with claims that can never be verified.
"But at present science is unable to confirm or deny this possibility?"
Yes, but neither can it confirm or deny that the constants are "fine-tuned" for life as we know it.
"But if this type of life begins then it is already compatible and doesn't need to adapt. This might just be a question of semantics but I think the use of the word 'adapt' in this context is imprecise."
There are two ways an organism can be adapted to a particular environment: they can either alter their genome as the environment changes or they can already possess the traits that make them better able to survive these changes than other organisms. Pim is (I think) suggesting that when life first appears it is so simple that it could be produced by a wide range of constant value combinations, but that it gradually adapts to fit the current specific value combination more closely. I am suggesting that a wide variety of lifeforms are produced, but that only a few have the features that make them pre-adapted to a specific value combination. These thrive at the expense of the others, eventually producing intelligence.
"And is there anything published on any research into the question of what kinds of life are possible and the conditions under which these kinds of life would be able to exist?"
Little in the way of actual research, but there is a lot of informed speculation that could, in future, lead to research.
Kevin L. O'Brien
"Good God, consider yourselves fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!" William Daniels, _1776_