Doesn't matter. Do you follow the evidence?
If the evidence points to design, do you follow the evidence? Or do you assume that design must mean God and so you rule it out automatically?
If the evidence points to God, do you follow the evidence? At what point do you decide, that "evidence" can't be considered because it might lead to a religious conclusion?
You miss the point. What evidence would point AWAY from God? If there is no possible evidence that would lead away from God (or ID, evolution, or any other idea) then the evidence leading toward that idea is meaningless. Since God, assuming He exists, can make the world look however He wants it to, all evidence favors the existence of God and no possible observation would be considered evidence that He doesn't exist. Scientifically speaking, evidence in favor of something that has no possibility of finding evidence against it is useless.
Of course you have to follow the evidence. We've all been holding our breath for several years for ID to present som actual evidence. False assertions that everyone can just intuitively see desing are not evidence. They are counter evidence, because every time I offer you examples of objects that might or might not be designed, you decline to take the challenge. You, yourself, by your own behavior, are among the best arguments against ID.
But you posted a response that ignored another question: What kind of evidence would disprove God as the designer? What would you accept?