Try these:
Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
DNA and Other Designs by Stephen Meyer
If you read these, you'll learn a lot. There's no "unsubstantiated guessing" or "hunches" in ID.
Anything that depends on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch" as a root cause isn't science. And please don't tell me that ID isn't religious as I have had too may ID supports say that I am not Christian because I refuse to call ID Science.
It is kind of like all those 9/11 'government did it' proofs on the Internet - it doesn't stand up when examined closely by independent reviewers.
It's not hard to avoid hypothesizing when your "theory" is almost entirely devoid of substantive content and empirical implications! I.e. when you pretend to have a "theory" about "intelligent design," but refuse to say a single thing, or even hazard a single speculation, about when, where, how or by whom (or what) instances of ID are actually instantiated. Or when you tout theoretical constructs like "specified complexity," but then refrain from risking their rigorous application to a single real world instance of anything.
IOW you, in effect, praise ID for it's vacuousness. But then that's about all you could do.
By contrast, actual scientific theories are SUPPOSED to lead to the generation of "hunches" (or rather testable implications, proposed problem solutions based on the theory, new approaches to the data, and etc).
There's no way to test it either. Any result *could* be the hypothetical designer's will. A biologist can reason from the artiodactyl phylogenetic tree that if a genetic marker is found in both pigs and cows it will also be found in deer, giraffes, hippos, and whales. If they aren't there, there is something wrong with the tree or with the underlying theory.
An ID-ist, on the other hand, can only shrug and say "well, maybe the designer put them there, and maybe he didn't". If they're found, it neither confirms or refutes ID; if they're not found, it neither confirms nor refutes ID. What possible use is a "theory" like that?
ID has no laboratories, has never mounted a field expedition, has never discovered a fossil. "Intelligent design" has published no independent scientific discoveries in any field, not just biology. ID has no professional journal; ID adherents rarely publish any scientific article with citations to peer-reviewed literature.
ID has offered no testable hypotheses and made no predictions other than supernatural explanations. ID is so impoverished as a theory that it can't even offer mechanisms by which the "Designer" imposed "His Designs". ID cannot even suggest when and where this intervention occurred.