Wrong. Natural selection is a mechanism. ID has no mechanism.
ID serves as a good theory because it fits most of the information science deals with
Well, let's review your version of ID: "organized matter that performs specific functions". Matter is "organized" as a necessary consequence of being matter (rather than, say, a symmetrical sea of energy in the form of the most elementary particles, whatever those may be) in the first place. And being so organized all matter has certain characteristics, and therefore "specific functions".
Your version of ID is a bad theory because it fits ALL of the evidence -- and all imaginable possible evidence whatsoever -- and thus is unfalsifiable, untestable and utterly useless.
The actual theory of ID is better than yours, except that it isn't a "theory" at all because it has no mechanism and no testable predictions. It's better than yours because it appeals to certain evidence as opposed to all possible and potential evidence. But the evidence (supposed inferences of the presence of "intelligent design") is non discriminatory.
A good theory must explain, and predict, at least some things that other theories don't. Yet those things that ID does "infer" as being ID are also explicable, potentially or in actual practice, by evolutionary theory. For instance the claim that "irreducibly complex" systems can not be formed by the stepwise addition of components is simply false, as demonstrated both in principle and in the case of specific instances.
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.
Oh yes it does. That fact the you do not understand this is conclusive evidence that you do not understand science period (dot, bingo). And that "explains" a lot.
To insist upon as much is to conflate the theory wit hits implications.
Precisely. "Conflating" a theory with it's implications is EXACTLY how science proceeds and advances. Scientific theories are tested exclusively by means of their implications.
Please do not deny ID the same amount of inferences and assumptions you enjoy for yourself.
I don't. Scientific theories are not limited (at least in principle -- there are certainly practical limits) with respect to allowable "inferences and assumptions". They are limited, however, with respect to their implications. For instance a theory that implies everything is useless. So is a theory that implies nothing distinctive.
On the contrary, science will never be able to assess "all" the evidence. ID fits the available evidence better than "natural selection," which is but an arbitrary, post hoc description of history, not a mechanism as you assert. The ubiquitous presence of organized matter performing specific functions ought to make ID axiomatic of science, rather than a notion beyond scientific purview. As it stands, you cannot contest ID scientifically, hence you have only subjective notions behind which to hide your fear of ID. Dot. BINGO!