Intelligent Design and Behavior: Things that make you go hmmmm

Has anyone ever wondered why intelligent design never really talks about anything but complexity and molecules or just complain about all the 'holes' in evolution (NOT)? One thing that has always perplexed me about Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the Explanatory Filter is how it would do discussing the evolution of behavior?

For instance, what does ID predict with respect to interactions among kin, sexual cannibalism, or female/male mating tactics/strategies. How about a really simple problem? When to stop searching an area for food? What would an ID based theory for foraging behavior look like? I guess I should be fair and state that this may just be one of those pathetic little detail problems that Dembski wants to overlook.

So, where could we start? How about the Designer? What sorts of things would an unknown, unspecified, supernatural designer want an animal to do when searching for food? Maybe this is why the identity and ideas about HOW the designer might do things are really important. What if it is a designer that's mathematically challenged and just decides that animals should just stay in patches till they run out of food. I guess that would work. Wouldn't do very well in terms of maximizing food intake but at least it would be a testable prediction.

How about infanticide? How would intelligent design explain infanticide? This would be a real test of the ID paradigm. What characteristics of the unknown designer might we infer from infanticide? That problem aside, the issue here is that ID as a theory is doomed unless something is known about the designer and that information can be used to generate hypotheses about the real world. When ID was treated this way (e.g., in Darwin's day) it was rejected as a hypothesis. Why? Because the data did were not consistent with the hypothesis of an intelligent designer that acted in way X, Y, & Z. If there is no X, Y, and Z about the intelligent designer, there can be no predictions or hypotheses only empty rhetoric and playing politics. ID is good at politics. You need only look at the stink they've raised over Sternberg and Gonzalez (oh the martyrs, NOT) which is completely unwaranted. Persecution this and that does not change the fact that ID is not science and will never be science. Darwin's theory has prevailed not because of ideology but because of explanatory power. Something ID completely lacks.