You know in your heart of hearts that the only reason why we are talking about the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" is that it was some Creationist-funded thinktank's brainchild to challenge evolution while skirting the seperation of church and state issue in the courts.
To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural, thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process (otherwise, there would be no need for a hypothesis that is an alternative to the letting the scientific process carry on) this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic. while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic (or maybe you believe that since according to Genesis the earth was ripe with vegetation a day before God created the sun and the moon).
Genetic fallacy.
To say that the natural laws of the universe were "designed" assumes that there is a force beyond the natural
In assuming the "natural laws of the universe are not designed by a supernatural power because there is no force beyond the natural" you're committing the fallacy of petitio principii.
...thereby super-natural force that "designed" the universe and its dimensions and forces by a process that can not be fully grasped by the scientific process...
There are many "processes" within an evolutionistic worldview that cannot be fully grasped by "the scientific process" (e.g., the big bang singularity, quantum physics, etc.)
this by definition is a "supernatural force" so yes... ID is inherently theistic.
By theistic you see to assume 1) that it is not scientific, which is clearly question begging and 2) that an ID proponent's belief in a supernatural force is grounds to dismiss ID as purely religious and unscientific by nature, which is clearly the genetic fallacy.
If it is true that the person who "discovered" the Benzine molecule based his theory on a metaphysical dream he had of a snake biting it's tale, that would still not grounds for dismissing the scientific truth of his discovery.
BTW, even if we conclude that ID has a religious source in the book of Genesis, this would not make the theory wrong. The idea that murder is wrong also comes from a religious source, but that does not make it wrong.
...while evolution is NOT inherently atheistic unles you want to tell me that Newtonian physics is inherently atheistic
Evolution is not identical to Newtonian physics. Evolution, btw, is implicitly atheistic (regardless of the fact that some theists believe in theistic evolution) because the basic assumption is that there is a naturalistic explanation for all that exists (as opposed to a supernatural explanation).
In other words, evolutionists on this thread shreak at the suggestion that a supernatural power had anything to do with designing the universe--the world--but what is the basic alernative? That NO supernatural power designed anything. But if that is true, then it is at the very least "practical atheism".