No you are forgetting the core principal of ID. Whereas a scientist would take apart the engine and discover how it works the ID'er would accept the engine exists and ponder the wonder of it.
ID removes all investigation as everything is Gods (lets call it what it is) design, no need to look deeper than that. If you don't understand something blame ID and walk away.
Sad
I take it you believe that a Ferrari or Masarati engine could just sort of happen, unassisted by any engineering or design?
Not necessarily, ever see 2001 Space Odyssey?
"ID removes investigation."
Wrong. ID actually spurs investigation. The diligent pursuit for an explanation of the "Big Bang" is complementary to ID.
In fact, those middle age theologians working without all the scientific discoveries we have today were coming pretty close with the "First Cause Argument".
Don't let your biases block out your own need for investigation. To turn around your analogy, Darwinism can't explain how we got from the carburator to fuel injection - or did it "just happen" also.
What does this do?:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." ~ Richard Lewontin
"(Darwins's notebooks) include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products." ~ Stephen Jay Gould
"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’" ~ Ernst Mayr
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. .... Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." ~ William Provine
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- [Charles] Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838 As quoted by Michael T Ghiselin in his book Metaphysics and the Origin of Species
Encyclopedia Britannica (excerpts):
"...At this time, however, Darwin began to lead something of a double life. To the world he was busy preparing his Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, which was published in 1839. ... Privately Darwin had begun a remarkable series of notebooks in which he initiated a set of questions and answers about "the species problem." .... Darwin kept this interest secret ...
..There was no place in Darwin's world for divine intervention, nor was mankind placed in a position of superiority vis-a-vis the rest of the animal world. Darwin saw man as part of a continuum with the rest of nature, not separated by divine injunction.
After the publication of the Origin, Darwin continued to write, while friends, especially Huxley, defended the theory before the public. ...
...Darwin met the issue of human evolution head-on in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), in which he elaborated on the controversial subject only alluded to in the Origin. ...
The second half of the book elaborated upon the theory of sexual selection. Darwin observed that in some species males battle other males for access to certain females. But in other species, such as peacocks, there is a social system in which the females select males according to such qualities as strength or beauty. Twentieth-century biologists have expanded this theory to the selection by females of males who can contribute toward the survival of their offspring; i.e., female selection secures traits that make the next generation more competitive.
Although Darwin's description of female choice was roundly rejected by most scientists at the time, he adamantly defended this insight until the end of his life. While not universally accepted today, the theory of female choice has many adherents among evolutionary biologists.
The last of Darwin's sequels to the Origin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), was an attempt to erase the last barrier presumed to exist between human and nonhuman animals--the idea that the expression of such feelings as suffering, anxiety, grief, despair, joy, love, devotion, hatred, and anger is unique to human beings.
Darwin connected studies of facial muscles and the emission of sounds with the corresponding emotional states in man and then argued that the same facial movements and sounds in nonhuman animals express similar emotional states. This book laid the groundwork for the study of ethology, neurobiology, and communication theory in psychology. ..
Throughout his career Darwin wrote two kinds of books--those with a broad canvas, such as the evolution quartet, and those with a narrow focus ...
Darwin worked alone at home, leading the life of an independent scientist (a privileged existence open to a fortunate few in Victorian England). Money from Robert Darwin made it unnecessary for Charles to seek employment.
After his return from the voyage Darwin knew he would never become a clergyman like his mentor, Henslow. Nor would he remain a bachelor like his brother, Erasmus, who was a man-about-town.
After drawing up lists of the benefits and drawbacks of marriage, he proposed to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, whom he married on Jan. 29, 1839. She brought fortune, devotion, and considerable housewifely skills that enabled him to work in peace for the next 40 years.
Newly married, the Darwins moved into a house on Gower Street in London, but within a few years Darwin's increasingly poor health prompted them to move to the country. In 1842 the Darwins moved into Down House in the village of Downe, Kent, only 16 miles from London but remote from easy access to the city.
Charles and Emma Darwin had 10 children: two died in infancy and a third, Anne, died at age 10. The surviving five sons went away to school. George, Francis, and Horace became distinguished scientists, and Leonard, a major in the royal army, was an engineer and eugenicist.
William Erasmus was undistinguished, as were his sisters, who prepared at home to follow their mother into marriage. Henrietta married; Elizabeth remained single at Down.
Darwin was devoted to his wife and daughters but treated them as children, obliging Emma to ask him for the only key to the drawers containing all the keys to cupboards and other locked depositories.
Darwin noted in The Descent that the young of both sexes resemble the adult female in most species and reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.
His attitude toward women coloured his scientific insights. "The female is less eager than the male," he wrote, "She is coy," and when she takes part in choosing a mate, she chooses "not the male which is most attractive to her, but the one which is least distasteful."
...Comfortable in English society, Darwin treasured his place and feared alienating those who he knew would be offended by his theory. ...
He was a beneficiary of this conservative English society, and his fear of ostracism was one of the forces that prevented him from publishing his theory sooner.
He also dreaded the hurt he knew that his ideas would inflict on his close friend Henslow and especially on Emma, both devout Christians, for whom his theory was heresy.
The conflict between his science and his realization of what publication would imply for the society he was so much a part of manifested itself in physical pain.
The once adventurous young naturalist was a semi-invalid before his 40th year.
Darwin's illness has been the subject of extensive speculation. Some of the symptoms--painful flatulence, vomiting, insomnia, palpitations--appeared in force as soon as he began his first transmutation notebook, in 1837.
Although he was exposed to insects in South America and could possibly have caught Chagas' or some other tropical disease, a careful analysis of the attacks in the context of his activities points to psychogenic origins.
Throughout the next decades Darwin's maladies waxed and waned. But during the last decade of his life, when he concentrated on botanical research and no longer speculated about evolution, he experienced the best health since his years at Cambridge. ...
Darwin died at Down House on April 19, 1882. ... his work remains central to modern evolutionary theory.
Excerpted from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission. HERE
Einstein would disagree. A quote from him.
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "
This quote is from a very interesting read. If you care to follow up on it refer to site http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm
I really don't understand why why it seems to come down to an "either/or" argument on both sides of the debate. ID'ers feel their beliefs are threatened should evolution proove to be true and evolutionists seem threatened should an Intelligent Designer proove to have set in motion an evolutionary process. I believe both sides protest too much.