No, that's not what ID is at all. If ID were about abiogenesis, it wouldn't be at all in conflict with the Theory of Evolution since the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. What ID does say is that God (or Xenu or some unspecified Creator) occasionally steps in and mucks about with the evolutionary process, creating "features" that ID proponents insist could not possibly be created through evolution. Now, in every specific case they cite, such as the flagellum, science has managed to provide a hypothetical evolutionary pathway, but when confronted with that the ID proponents simply smile and either repeat the same example over and over hoping no one will notice, or pick some new supposedly "irreducibly complex" mechanism to harp on, which is in turn dispensed with by the scientific community. Note that ID never actually attempts to tell us what the Creator is, how it works or what mechanisms it uses, it simply posits some unspecified miracle for everything that is not completely understood.
Allright, learn something new every day. I admit my ignorance as to ID, since I haven't been following it. However, the theory of evolution still does not explain everything. Mathmatically, it is highly improbable for the primordial soup to have developed complex amino acids in the time frame specified by the theory. Am I saying that it is impossible? No I am not. All I am saying is that it is still open to speculation, which is what a theory is. I don't have much of a bio background, but I do know enough about math and physics and chemistry to understand that some of the things that have happened (the formation of complex protiens, the formation of the planets/solar systems/galaxies/clusters/superclusters) are still not fully solved by science, and will never be (in my eyes) until actual proof by first hand evidence is shown to prove it (does anyone have a good time machine handy?). If the ID people are wrong, then they are wrong, but likewise, the evolution crowd may not be right either, because there is no conclusive evidence supporting what that theory states about the begining of it all. If people believe that life started by an accident of nature, then more power to them, but it still as yet needs to be proven. I am aware that scientists are trying to re-create the conditions that are believed to have caused the formation of the first amino acids, and they still haven't done it yet. One of the theories that I know of states that the amino acids came from comets, which is all good and dandy, but WHERE DID THEY FORM, and how? Nothing is set in stone about it, so there is still room for a revision of the theory.