And that's why ID isn't science. ID is simply criticism of evolution theory based on the hypothesis that complex things require a designer. They then look for complex things and repeat the hypothesis. No evidence that supports the "complex things need a designer" is ever offered. The hypothesis just gets restated in different ways. If a real scientist were to suggest that a designer existed and that his existance explained the origin of life in the universe, then he would have to prove that a designer could exist and explain a mechanism for his coming into being and suggest an experiment to support his hypothesis. If found, he would have a theory.
And that's why ID isn't science. ID is simply criticism of evolution theory based on the hypothesis that complex things require a designer.
You have obviously bought the whole truckload of straw-men from the neo-Darwinian priesthood.
The question of what was the algorithm behind the emergence of life and its evolution is a perfectly valid scientific question. Was it a simple trial and error, as neo-Darwinian high priests claim to be the case (but won't say how do they know it or show any scientific proof), or was it something far more sophisticated that "runs" many orders of magnitude faster? After all, we know from computer science that 'trial and error' kind of search algorithms are the dumbest and the most wasteful way to go about it, short of deliberate wastefulness.
The examples of sophistication, cleverness and economy observed among the biochemical processes of life, virtually anywhere science has looked in sufficient detail, are used by ID proponents to illustrate the fundamental incongruity of the neo-Darwinian dogma that at the core of it all must be the dumbest and the most wasteful algorithm conceivable. Just because that's all the neo-Darwinian priesthood, still operating within the 19th century mechanistic model of the universe as a gigantic Newton-Maxwell clockwork, could think up so far, that must be all there is to it. Otherwise, they figure, if there is a tiniest crack in our public image of all-knowing wizards, the next thing these ID heretics will question will be our control of the research funding. Better nip that in the bud. Sue the greedy bastards.
The questions raised by ID are perfectly good, open scientific questions which the neo-Darwinian priesthood, in its desperate efforts to maintain illusion of its omniscience (and the research funds that go with such power) is trying to banish using courts and police.