I understand the point you're making. My statement of the ID hypothesis was a deliberate attempt to avoid what you're saying.
As I see it, singling out a curious biological feature, and trying to identify how it might have evolved, is a good PhD project for a biology student. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing Darwin did, for example, with the eye. He highlighted it, and then he proceed to search for (and find) earlier steps along the way, leading to eyes as we know them. This is how science works -- (a) focus on an apparent anomaly, and then (b) investigate it. But too much of what I observe from the supporters of ID involves only the first part -- pointing to an apparent anomaly. They leave out part "b" entirely, electing instead to leap to a possibly unwarranted conclusion.
Well, if you have a pursuit, that when it encounters the eye of a needle and the hump of a camel, to infinity tries to get that camel crammed through that eye by very principle, I say "I won't argue with foolishness anymore." I am throwing no Powerball-winning parties. At some point, unless one's mind is wired to an infinite loop, the world we see quite well justifies stepping back and saying "gee, this does look like it was exquisitely set up and didn't just wander into its current state." A belief in a participation of the freewill of created beings that can in some wise influence the course of the world sets up the case even more strongly -- why didn't that derail the Mindless Evolution? if it was a Mindless Evolution? Doesn't it take a Mind to accommodate everything that another Mind can do?