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.
The reason I'm being so picky about the definition of ID is that good definitions are absolutely essential. If we're not careful (and I don't think the Discovery Institute gives a darn about being careful), we can prejudice the whole thing by building into the definition the very conclusions that must be rigorously determined.
I kept your "may be explained" and only added the word "best".
my last: Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Certain features of life v non-life may be best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process.