"Design" implies designer, by the very definition of the word - it makes no sense to call an accident "designed". The fact that ID theorists decline to speculate about the identity of the putative designer does not mean that the theory does not require a designer of some sort, even if we stipulate to not knowing who that designer might be.
Yes, general_re. All you say is true. Yet you continue to miss my point. To reiterate: the Designer is not a proper scientific question. Only the putative design can properly be a matter for scientific investigation.
Perhaps you don't want it to turn out that the universe is designed (as ID alleges), because you can't stand the idea of the Designer. You begin with a massive pre-analytical prejudice. And so, to make your universe "safe" from God, you refuse to even look at evidence for design. As if that could ever make the evidence -- or God -- just "go away." All this sort of thing does is distort your view of what is actually before your own two eyes, leading you to conceptualize a false picture of Nature.