ID is actually based on lots of observable evidence and facts. The main argument for intelligent design is based on scientific observation. The conclusion of IDers is, that after observing the facts, evolution does not and cannot reasonably account for life as it currently exists; including specific parts of the bodies of various non-plant life forms.
Please. 'We don't yet understand how something works' is not positive evidence of anything except the observer's lack of understanding.
Lots? Show me ONE!
Your two statements don't connect. Hurling bricks (whether in error or correctly) at the theory of evolution does not for one instant validate a Theory of ID (whatever that may be). You are trying to treat ID as a default answer, to be used if you can invalidate ToE. ID must stand or fall on its own merits (and I wish it luck attempting to do so, as the sum total of ID theory and attempts to create ID theory by its supporters appears to be zip, zilch, nada).
Translation: Science doesn't have all the answers, so God exists.
I'm sure your predecessors said the same thing about lightning a few centuries ago. That it was "proof of God".
Your problem is that you depend on there being unexplainable phenomena as your evidence of God, but unexplainable phenomena are getting fewer every day.
Wouldn't you be better off to believe that God worked WITH the natural world, rather than apart from it? That way you can say that "God raised up the sun this morning, and brought the rain in the afternoon", rather than saying that conservation of energy turned the earth toward the sun but God created the species in an instant, even though there's no evidence to support that conclusion.
You are imagining a God hiding in the mysteries of life, rather than a God that is all around you and can be studied to discover that He created species by a process we call "evolution".
Doesn't ID say that evolution occurs and the earth is 4.5byo?
ID is based on the assumption that complexity can only come from intelligence. When confronted with their inability to show that a designer is limited to complex design and that nature is limited to simple design, they point to the construct of 'specified' complexity. What they will not admit is that without knowing the intent of the designer, specificity is impossible to recognize.