TOE answers questions for us. We have a rough timeline of When various species or features (What) evolved. We have a mechanism of variation and selection (How) to describe change in response to environmental factors (Where and Why). We can use these questions/answers to apply the sscienceof evolution to real world problems (cancer treatments, more …). The “Who” doesn’t really apply in evolution (but l will leave room here for my TE/OEC friends to believe there is a Who.).
OTOH, ID answers none of these questions for us. We cannot know what, when, where, why, or how design operates, nor does it make predictions we can apply in the real world. When ID attempts these questions, they invariably borrow the same answers we get from TOE.
That leaves Who, and a tenet of ID is the Designer cannot be named.
@Mung, we had a long discussion about probability and information recently. We know how to assign probabilities to certain types of mutation/evolution, at least in limited cases (definitely not all at once). To have similar evidence of ID we ought to be able to calculate probabilities for design as well. If we could do that, then we could compare statistical evidence for evolution to equivalent evidence for guided design.