I do understand your objection, however "intelligent design" is not a default hypothesis. If it were, then any explanation - no matter how bizarre - would "do" as a better explanation than intelligent causation.
I'm picturing here a man walking on the beach, picking up a wristwatch with the trademark "Timex" and declaring it came from outer space. Bizarre, yes - possible, yes - best explanation, no.
The intelligent design hypothesis claims to meet all other explanations toe-to-toe in asserting that intelligent causation is the best explanation for certain features in life v non-life.
To see interlocking complex systems should cause reflection on origins. It has on many fronts, no doubt. In that regard ID and evolution are similarly trying to understand origins. One can posit a designer, a process, an accident, a combination of designer & process, ....
I don't know if any of those are default, unless one has a presupposition one brings to the table.
Yes, that's the claim. There is no supporting evidence yet, and very little published research -- virtually nothing in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Unless someone wants to regard the Discovery Institute as a bunch of gurus, and take their announcements on faith, I think it's necessary to ignore unsubstantiated claims, and to phrase the hypothesis as a possibility. That's why I worded my last version thusly:
The Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable may be explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.