Except ID claims the process is incapable of explaining the diversity of species, and rather some intelligence must have had to interfere in the process. Evolution on the otherhand says that there is no reason to think the process isn't capable of generating all the species alive today from one original form.
So now you realise evolution is essentially one of these "programs" or "processes" or whatever you want to call it, perhaps you can now see why the thermodynamic argument against it is totally bogus.
"Except ID claims the process is incapable of explaining the diversity of species, and rather some intelligence must have had to interfere in the process."
Incorrect. ID is perfectly compatible with a front-loaded evolutionary process. For example, you should see JA Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary hypothesis:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_PrescribedEvolution_110804.pdf
ID is against atelic forms of evolution, specifically, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it. ID is compatible with the idea of "smart" cells that can adapt in complex ways to a changing environment.
It seems like perhaps you believe in ID, you just didn't know what it was and assumed it was equivalent with special creation. Note that it is compatible with special creation, but is also compatible with frontloaded evolution, and even somewhat with the ideas that evolutionary forms are coded within the laws of the universe. For an example of that, see Denton's paper, "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law":
http://levee.wustl.edu/~spozgay/home/Denton,Marshall,Legge-Jour.Theo.Biol.2002.pdf
It seems that the problem that you have with ID is that you are misinformed as to what it is.