[Stultis]

Yes, but those who wish to have their children exposed to the possibility of intelligent design as an explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions

But then ID doesn't "explain" anything. Actual scientific theories explain facts and phenomena by means of integral mechanisms or models. ID (quite intentionally) has no mechanism or model, and (again intentionally) refuses to posit any. It merely pretends to "infer" the presence of "intelligent design," and then stops there. It's too vacuous to explain "design," or anything else for that matter. What's worse, your utterly idiosyncratic version of ID ("organized matter that performs specific functions" -- which basically applies to everything that does, or can, exist anywhere in the universe) is EVEN MORE vacuous than actual ID as forwarded by Behe, Dembski, et al!

[PatrickHenry]

EVEN MORE vacuous placemarker.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is fairly clear that what you require as "explanatory" from ID you do not require of "natural selection." ID serves as a good theory because it fits most of the information science deals with, from the first hypothesis intellectually formed and expressed to the tiniest particle of matter that does not fly off into chaos. To that extent ID is indeed "explanatory." Organized matter that perfroms specific functions is its evidence, of which there is plenty.

ID does not need to give a name or specific characteristics, personal or otherwise, to any implied or inferred intelligence in order to be scientific. To insist upon as much is to conflate the theory wit hits implications. ID has plenty of evidence from which to infer or deduce intelligent design. And science will certainly not be harmed even if it proceeds inductively under assumption of intelligent design. Please do not deny ID the same amount of inferences and assumptions you enjoy for yourself.