That's not the sense in which the term "intelligent design" is commonly used today, unfortunately. It has come to mean the assertion that life cannot have evolved in through Darwinian processes, and further, that this can be scientifically demonstrated.
Which is really a shame, because it is perfectly reasonable to hold to a philosophical view that the universe was intelligently designed, that all its laws and constants were set "just right" so as to allow for the volution of man. There's nothing in this view offensive to modern science. Now, however, thanks to crackpots like Behe, there is really no good label for this perfectly respectable philosophical view.
Life definitely could not have evolved through Darwinian processes, that should be self evident. The diversity of life is another story.
I suggest you actually read about ID rather than putting words in there mouth, ID by its first proponents says it is meant to compliment and even explain processes that darwinism, neo darwinism anmd the like cannot explain. It is not meant to replace it, as evolution did to creationism, and you would assert.
It was called the teleological view as of a few years ago. The argument that a watch being so intricate, there must be a watch maker...
Before reading this, I thought that was the inteligent design argument. Outa touch I guess. Couldn't figure what the fuss was about.
M