Isn’t it fair to say that induction will only get you halfway? Inductive reasoning can be rather good at generating hypotheses, because once you have drawn a (provisional) conclusion from your induction you can then deduct entailments and so identify observations that may confirm or falsify your conclusion. It is this second step that is generally missing in the ID argumentation, and I’m not even sure that they realise it is an essential part of what makes this type of reasoning scientific. Witness a 100+ post thread asking for ID hypotheses without a single one being offered.