"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.
I don't think such a process can be called evolutionary anymore than the metamorphosis of the butterfly is evolutionary, or indeed the growth of an egg into a full organism is. It is some form of programmed transmutation. I have no idea how much randomness vs determinism this davison fellow suggests is involved, but it sounds like randomness is almost totally ruled out as part of new species generation.
ID is against atelic forms of evolution, specifically, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it.
The evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection inspired the computer science field of evolutionary computation. Solutions to complex problems can be generated using the principles of mutation and selection in genetic algorithms and genetic programming. So random change and selection are capable of design. Evolution critics do not deny this, but level the charge that such algorithms are front-loaded by their designers.
I disagree with that assertion, but nontheless they see that darwinian evolution would be capable of design if it were front-loaded. What does front-loaded mean in this situtation? Well there are two critical parts of genetic algorithms to design:
1) A fitness function, which estimates how fit any given individual is.
2) A format for the genome that represents each individual.
Getting these two right is what makes or breaks the effectiveness of the algorithm to design a solution.
So if this is all the front-loading is then front-loaded biological evolution would simply involve designing a fitness function for life (which is redundant as it is inherent in nature - ie the fittest survives tautology), and a format for the genome that makes the algorithm effective.
Basically what I am getting at here is that a better and simpler explaination of front-loading exists than the one davison presents: The first single-celled lifeform on earth was intelligently designed in a way that allowed mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record. That is true evolutionary frontloading and is the position many theist evolutionists have.
Yes I know that the ID movement is against the "idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it", but that is just downright suspicious as random mutations and natural selection are perfectly consistant as a front-loaded intelligently designed algorithm.