Try “curiosity” as the source ~ although I’m sure you were buying into it.
Dembski, for example, says that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."
Your definition may vary, although it would be nice to know what it is for purposes of discussion.
Now, are you contending along with Southack that the "pig in the lab creating human growth hormone" is evidence in support of intelligent design? If so, can you explain how laboratory manipulation (however intelligent) of natural systems or components is evidence for intelligent design of the natural systems or components being manipulated?