That's not necessarily correct. If I were to suggest an ID, it would fit the observations made in nature. Which is, that the code tends to be hacked to fit current needs, that copy/paste is used, and that bugs are introduced. Very, very much like software development as we know it. So, if I were to suggest a single "designer", I would suspect they are way overworked. I would, I think, suggest multiple "designers" and "coders" and suspect that some of the sub-contractors are not too hot at what they do, while others are brilliant. And I suggest that that explanation fits the observed results also.
And here is falsifiable statement for ID. I bet that if my (half-joking) statement is correct, somewhere in the DNA we will find some "comment" statements (maybe in the so-called "junk" DNA). So here you go. If no "comment" statement is ever found, then this half-joke ID theory has been falsified. So all that is required to disprove this half-joke ID, is to show that the "junk" DNA contains no coding comments.
I know you say it tongue in cheek but this has proposal has been put forth before to which I ask what would the "comment" look like? Is it written in english? In novel nucleotides?