If you stopped there without speculating as to how it was done, it seems you would be in a stronger position with regard to Occam's razor (I think the Latin spelling is more traditional).
Consider these two assertions:
1) The crop circle was made by some intelligence.
2) The crop circle was made by a group of one or more humans with the use of stakes, ropes, or lawnmower or similar tools.
Unless you consider humans not to be a form of intelligence, the first assertion is always true if the second is. But the second is possibly not true if the first is.
The more specific an assertion is within the subset of another assertion the less likely it is to be true. This is essentially the definition of the largely misunderstood or misapplied Occam's Razor".
Any ID proponent who is willing to similarly research and develop a coherent theory as to how the designer actually does it will have my respect.
Agreed such research would be most impressive! But I don't think mortal science is up to the task.
But please notice how you just applied a high value to the non application of Occam's Razor? Indeed, a more specific assertion, if true, is more valuable then a less specific assertion that could be deduced from it. Occam's Razor only applies to the relative chance of veracity, not the value of the assertion itself.
It seems to me my objection to your original criticism of ID stands unscathed:
My issue with ID proponents is that, having posited that the origin of life is complex beyond the capacity of science to understand
ID proponents do not hold that the complexity of life is beyond the capacity of science to understand. Rather they hold the complexity as evidence that there was intelligence behind it.
...they resolve that dilemma by...
The dilemma seems purely your invention here.
introducing a creator more complex still, by several orders of magnitude!!
The creator doesn't make it more complex at all. The model of the creator used is based on very broad parameters, because the details are beyond the scope of what they are promoting.
Indeed they are applying Occam's Razor and you seem not to, as if you merely wish them to assert more then they reasonably can.
Now is ID a valid form of science. No, I don't think so, but is it a reasonable philosophical doctrine. Yes, it would seem so.
Exactly.
When a proposed explanation for "the way the world is" moves from natural to supernatural causes, it leaves the realm of science and enters into the realm of philosophy.
Not any less "valid", just a different mode of approach.
Thanks for your well thought out posts!