ID can and does make observable testable predictions all the time.
Where and by who? Are these published anywhere?
I've read a lot of ID literature and I can tell you from experience that they don't have much in the way of any kind of unified body of thought from which to make scientific, testable predictions from. Unless there is some sort of repository of ID literature out there I am completely unaware of, I'm not holding my breath over this claim.
Obviously the baseline of our human experience is what we must draw from. We know how "human" designers act when designing things and therefore this is the base of our understanding. By observing human designers we observe the following four basic features found in design.
I went through this list and there are a few major caveats with it:
1) Too many vague qualifiers, no real scientific rigor. For example, you use the word "often" a bunch of times, but there is no indicator as to what that means. Does it mean 50% of the time? 80%? 99%?
2) There are no measurements to support any of your assertions. You give a couple examples, but examples by themselves aren't particular useful in trying to quantify a particular phenomena.
3) What you list ignores a whole gamut of human output. You see design as a result of deliberate, careful planning. Starting with a goal. Drawing up blueprints. Creating things with a specific purpose. Etc. However, it ignores the entire gamut of creative expression and particular that which runs on the artistic side. Often we also create things with no real goal, purpose or intended function. Sometimes we build things just for the sake of building it.
3b) It also ignores cases whereby humans use unconventional design processes, for example genetic algorithms. Such approaches can and do result in output that can baffle the original designers of said algorithm.
4) Generally if you want to draw up a hypothesis with predictive tests, there needs to be specific constraints and/or cause-effect relationships by which specific outputs can be predicted and observed. With biological evolution we can identify specific mechanisms and consequently constraints when it comes to things like gene flow, changes to genotypes and phenotypes, and/or responses to environmental pressures. For example, we could hypothesize about natural selection occurring based on specific environmental effects, and then test to see if those environmental circumstances were present. But a lot this requires having an understanding for the mechanisms by which things work (i.e. evolutionary changes), and that is something flat-out don't have for an Intelligent Designer. Unless you are specifically restricting this to human design and manufacture.
We can convert these observations into a working hypothesis that predicts what we should observe if something is designed.
The below hypothesis unfortunately speaks to what I mentioned earlier; that rather than be
predictive, it'st just post-hoc rationalization arguing that a designer did things the way they happen to do things.
On top of that it makes a number of specific assumptions about the designer's intentions that we have no way of validating, as I will go into.
1. We predict that if life is the product of design it will have several parts arranged in patterns in such a way to perform specific functions.
I honestly don't see how this would be any different than what we would expect from biological evolution.
2. We predict that if life were the product of design then forms found in the fossil record will appear suddenly with already developed large amounts of information. And that any change from its first appearance in the fossil record to its disappearance will be none to very minimal. That the fossil record will not display a gradual progression of life over time in any one geological region. We also expect to see examples of information transfer, processing, and recall in living organisms and their genes.
First, the term "information" is vague. Generally information gets used with respect to quantity of DNA, but for fossils where we don't necessarily have any DNA. Thus, I have no idea what "information" you are referring to.
Second, we do observe patterns in the fossil record owing to the fact that lifeforms appear at different geological ages throughout Earth's history and there are examples of development of different features. If the fossil record was completely mixed up with all lifeforms (modern and extinct) appearing at the same time since the beginning of the planet's history, then you might have a point here. But the geological record doesn't bear that out.
Third, there is no reason to assume a designer would be constrained in any such manner as to how they decided to create individual lifeforms. The only way we could identify such constraints is if we also knew the mechanism by which they created things.
3. We predict that if life is the product of design that we will observe very similar designs redeployed many times in not only the functional physical structures but also in the DNA gene codes themselves of all life.
Again, this doesn't seem any different than what we'd expect with biological evolution. The difference though is that while we'd expect this from evolution due to mechanisms of hereditary constraint, a designer would have no such constraints. In fact, I'd argue that if lifeforms were truly independently designed we might expect the exact opposite: all sorts of funky, chimeric organisms with no indications of hereditary constraint whatsoever.
4. Finally we predict that if life is the product of design, that many things believed to serve no purpose or have no understood purpose (often considered vestigial organs and or junk DNA) will be discovered to perform valuable functions in the future.
This makes an implicit assumption that the designer would have tried to be as efficient as possible, but we have no reason to assume this is true. Unless you can tell me why the designer would have needed to create a fully functional genome and support that with evidence, this doesn't qualify as a prediction of anything.
(It's also worth noting that creationists make blatantly contradictory arguments about things like "junk DNA". Some creationists argue that it's the product of corrupted genetic change over the years and therefore while it may have once had a function, it no longer is functional. While others are arguing the exact opposite: that the entirety of the genome is fully functional and we just don't know how yet.)
All of these predictions are observed in the physical evidence.
Like I said, it seems that your "predictions" are nothing more than post-hoc rationalization to argue for "design" based on what is already observed. And in this particular case, it's life that appears to have resulted via biological evolution.
