Behe and the falsifiability of Intelligent Design

One of the commonest reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design as unscientific is that it cannot be falsified. It is compatible with all observations and therefore useless from a scientific point of view. Note that if the intelligent design community were prepared to say anything about the designer, its intentions and how it implements its design then it would be falsifiable (and probably false). However, they aren't prepared to make any such statement.

When challenged about this Behe famously gave this example (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Behe_ReplyToCritics_121201.pdf):

To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or any equally complex system—was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

I challenge this. ID is not specific about how complex life forms appear - but it does recognise they do appear. So, if we put a bunch of bacteria together and some new complexity arises, in what way is this incompatible with intelligent design?

The confusion arises because Behe is equating disproof of neo-darwinism with proof of intelligent design. He believes that such an event is impossible as a result of neo-darwinian methods. So if it happens then neo-darwinian methods are substantiated and therefore ID is false. However, most neo-darwinians would be flabbergasted if such complexity arose in so few generations in such a limited environment. In fact I fancy it would cause some deep rethinking about how random variation operates. In fact such an outcome might well be seen as evidence against neo-darwinism but not intelligent design.