I have two problems with that.
One is I admit a personal bias that sometimes keeps me from separating the idea of ID with the practice of it. I have followed and studied creationists for a long time, and I saw the evolution from creationism to ID. I know that most of the proponents (at least the ones I see, the dolphin problem*) start with the Christian God as the creator, then put up this agnostic shield to protect themselves from claims of being neo-creationists. The recent Dover trial showed this quite clearly.
The other is a matter of wording, but one that is important to me. I see them as not trying to remove a naturalist presumption, but as trying to include the presumption of the supernatural.
FTR, I believe methodological naturalism is the right way.
* The dolphin thing, that I learned while taking psychology, roughly quoting the prof: "For thousands of years, there have been reports from sailors saying that dolphins saved them after a shipwreck or after being thrown overboard. They say how the dolphins pushed them to shore when they couldn't have made it themselves. From this, many assume that dolphins are our friends, that they try to save our lives."
"But I proffer that the dolphins don't care about us. They merely play with the creatures flailing in the water, pushing them in random directions. We think dolphins are friendly because we only hear the stories from those who were pushed to shore, not from those who were pushed out to sea to drown."
Of a truth, if one uses the ideology of a proponent of a hypothesis or theory as a basis to discredit that hypothesis or theory - he invites the correspondent to do likewise.
In this case, when one equates the intelligent design hypothesis to the creationists who support it - then the opponent will equate evolution theory to the atheists who support it.
Such reasoning is simply not productive - minds cannot be changed by exchanging spit wads.
IMHO, we ought to compare hypothesis to hypothesis, movement to movement, ideology to ideology etc.
The most obvious "cut" is whether one sees the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or whether one sees it as an either/or. The majority of Christians, including virtually all Catholics, see the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or transcedent, i.e. God created "all that there is" both spiritual and physical and He alone is transcedent (and yet immanent).
And then there are those on this forum who see "natural" and "supernatural" as mutually exclusive - the more science discovers natural causation, the less the supernatural can “be”. This false dichotomy leads to much of the crevo warfare around here, IMHO.
IOW, when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused - but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself.