As is yours of ID.
Are you sure that your understanding of ID is complete? You realize that by accepting intelligent design, at least as it is formulated by those scientists who are seriously attempting to make scientific inquiry using ID, you accept:
1. That the universe probably orgininated in much the way described by current inflationary theory (ie. the Big Bang).
2. That the earth is approximately 5 billion years old.
3. That life probably formed on earth from nonliving matter, although possibly with some guidance from an overseeing intelligent being, and that the first living things were simple single-celled creatures.
4. That more complex organisms formed via a process of mutation and natural selection that is remarkably similar to that currently accepted by scientists under the evolutionary paradigm, but that the mutations were guided rather than unguided.
In short, beyond the notion that there is some intelligent being guiding the process, an untestable and hence unscientific notion, ID is very similar to evolution. ID, for example, does not deny that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor. ID in short is much more compatible with evolution and much more incompatible with any form of creationism.
I don't propose to understand all of ID. I just know enough to know that it's not science. I won't even argue whether or not it's true. My ENTIRE argument is that it is not science.