What is it about "In the beginning God created[...]" that isn't "intelligent factor" to you?
Without intelligence, you assume a GODLESS state. See the problem it has with Christianity?
No, you assume God-neutral.
Just like atronomy. If you take Genesis literally, you better get ready to defend a 6,000 year old Earth. Which nothing in any science that deals with anything historical (astophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropololgy, agronomy, archeology) agrees with.
Sure it's intelligence, but that's not what ID is.
ID, at least as proposed by the leaders of the movement, has nothing to do with the beginning. It's all about the supposed inadequacy of evolution to explain what happened AFTER the beginning.
If you wanted to write some ID scriptures, they'd sound a lot like this:
It's more like this:
"200-300 million years after the beginning, the designer thought it would be really cool if bacteria could swim. Unfortunately he also saw that they were having trouble evolving their own means of locomotion. So the designer, in all his benevolence, decided to give them irreducibly complex flagella.
"After another 3 billion years or so, the designer decided that natural evolution was failing to produce enough phyla for his liking. So he set to work desiging all kinds of new body plans, resulting in the Cambrian explosion!"
ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology.