Are you aware of the beliefs of the most influential proponents of ID?
Your post would suggest not. For example Michael Behe (the leading scientific proponent of ID) accepts that evolution is true, and that humans are descended from apes, and that the Designer (whoever He may be) doesn't appear to have intervened for hundreds of millions of years, that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, there was no global flood around 4500 years ago, and it would be a good idea to teach high-schoolers that the Designer may be dead. (declarations made under oath in the Dover trial).
Is that really your position too? Or is the label ID just a flag of convenience for you that you think sounds more scientific than just declaring you are a creationist who rejects the bulk of established science in numerous fields, not just biology?
It would be nice to substantiate these claims.
I present the designer may be "dead" twisting.
Q. A hundred years? A. All of the structures that I wrote about in Darwin's Black Box and have considered are much older than that. Q. So scientifically, we can't even make -- we can't even state right now that an intelligent designer still exists, correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Is that what you want taught to high school students? A. What are you referring to by that? Q. That scientific -- after teaching them about intelligent design, sign -- and telling them that, that is a scientific proposition, that right now, scientifically, we can't even tell you that an intelligent designer exists? Is that what you want taught to high school students? A. Well, let's make a couple distinctions. First of all, when I say, when you use the word taught, again, a lot of people have in mind instructing students that this is correct. Q. That's not what I mean, Professor Behe. A. Well, I'm sorry. I was unable to figure out exactly what you meant. If you're asking -- Q. Tell them about it, Professor Behe. Make them aware. Give them information. A. Make them aware that some people say that, from the purposeful arrangement of parts, we can conclude that something was designed, but many other questions we can't determine, including whether there were multiple designers, whether the designer is natural or not, whether the designer still exist? Yes, I think that would be a terrific thing to point out to students. It shows the limitations of theories. It shows that some evidence bears on one topic, but does not bear on others. I think that would be terrific pedagogy.