The official line is that ID doesn't even specify a religion. It could have been aliens, etc. This is in an effort to be accepted as science.
In any case, however much smoke you blow, any intelligent person knows which god you're talking about. There is no way that the Discovery Institute will accept that the designer is really the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH).
Diversity of thought, that's what ID allows for. There's the Invisible Pink Unicorn proponents who I respect, then there's my faction: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages).
Because after all if you posit design without defining the designer, it's little different (and just as provable) as any superstitious belief.
Excuse me now, I have to go sacrifice a goat to the Rain God for clear skys this weekend, just in case.
Then you have no issue with the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be our Creator? It fits with ID.
That's true. Most ID proponents, however, also believe in God therefore there is an indirect religious connection. But the foundation of ID itself is pattern analysis. Science is being forced to respond to ID's challenges. Whether science and academia accept ID as a field of study is irrevelant to me. ID is pointing out the flaws of macro evolution, evolutionists are attempting to respond and that's healthy for science and greater understanding.