And who has asserted such a thing?
ID supporters who assert that ID hasn't been proven false (since it cannot be, by definition) therefore it must be considered a valid proposition, with absolutely no evidence to support the assertion, only conclusions. [The Fallacy of Begging the Question.]
Once again, ID is the supposition that natural laws are inadequate (note the negative) to explain other natural phenomenon. This assertion would require an omniscient understanding of the natural world and natural laws. The only means by which science, in the proper context of the term, can evaluate assertions is via natural laws, or it is mysticism.
Before the proposition of an "irreducible complexity" is considered as a premise for ID, evidence must be given that the structure is "irreducibly complex" (which is an opinion not a fact), that there is a pre-existent intelligence to "design" it and that that intelligence actually had a hand in designing it, which is impossible to prove, by definition.
Burden of Proof. ID fails on all three.