From the general theory of intelligent design science engages in specific fields of study, much of which enjoys or requires the rigorus application of falsifiable hypotheses, etc. The best science does not shy away from entertaining propsitons that may appear absurd on the face of it. The more reliable science is engaged in direct observation, which places the notion of a 4.5 billion-year-old earth, among other notions like the spaghetti monster, on relatively shaky ground.
You're just verbally identifying the presupposition of the uniformity of natural law as the "general theory of intelligent design." (You could name it "Bob" just as easily.) First it has nothing to do with the (putatively) scientific approach called "intelligent design". Second, as I've already said, if anything it contradicts ID. So far as you philosophically generalize the uniformity of natural law, the result is naturalism. ID is nothing if not a denial of naturalism.