Hutter’s work on abstract intelligent agents anthropomorphizes nothing. It is a description of a general notion of intelligence that can be applied even to processes in a computer (indeed was constructed to describe such).
Again, the problem with ID as usually proposed is that it has no scientific theory of intelligence broad enough to apply to unknown processes which may be very far from anything like human intelligence, seeing that no advocate of ID proposes that human intelligence designed either life or any organism (leaving aside very recent lab work). I have tentatively suggested one, and pointed out that under this definition of intelligence, the dynamics of the biosphere as described by neo-Darwinism arguably fits the definition of an intelligent agent.
Perhaps you should read the rest of my posts to this thread a bit more carefully: The question of why there is a dynamical system that shows the characteristics of an intelligent agent is left unanswered by it — it is there that one should look for the hand of God, not in the construction of molecular machines or eyeballs.
A believer's understanding of God excludes Him from nothing -- neither scientific, nor historical, nor social & ideological.
God's presence can be seen in all, even where science thinks it's found a "law" or "theory" to describe the patterns it observes, and regardless of how "random" or "chaotic" it may seem, God's will operates everywhere.
The "butterfly effect" and "strange attractor" are God's plan in motion.
So no natural-scientific theory can exclude God regardless of how atheistic its proponents might be.
That's the reason why we should make to effort to distinguish one scientific idea from any other based on some mis-guided notion of "religiously correct".
Are we on the same wave-length here?