Yeah. We all (wearily) understand that this is completely true by YOUR definition of "Intelligent Design," which is that any recognition, whatever, of order or regularity in the universe is ipso facto, ID.
The problems are that 1) No one else, not a single person I've ever heard of or come across, and certainly no on in the "ID movement," uses your definition of ID, and 2) it doesn't distinguish anything, since ALL scientific theories, INCLUDING evolution, predicate order and regularity in nature.
You may continue your tiresome exercise in tautology at your own discretion, but this will comprise the totality of my response for the present thread.
I prefer to use the words "may be reasonably construed or inferred as ID," and not enter into positive language. Why? Because science deals with relative truth and not absolute truth. And you're right, the idea is so comprehensive it is a wonder some kind of movement is needed to re-state what has been patently obvious since the beginning of time.