Strikingly inaccurate. This makes it sound as though ID is simply an attempt to answer the question of abiogenesis. But when many ID proponents start off with an a priori denial of macroevolution, it quite obviously goes way beyond that.
Beyond that, there's this, which is worth repeating:
The battle between evolutionary biology and faith isn't inevitable. As genome researcher Collins says, "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God. Why couldn't God use the mechanism of evolution to create?"
Why, indeed...
God, being God could have used any method He wanted. The four "major camps" of young earth creation, ID, gradualism and punctuated equilibria disagree on the interpretation of the available evidence.
I think that explains it more than any specific scientific data.
Indeed it does try to replace not just abiogenesis, but also evolution and materialist theories of the Universe. Nothing wrong with that except the scare tactics of evolutionists. What evolutionists do not admit is that as far as the Universe, abiogenesis and even about the reproductive process most scientists and scientifically proven facts in each field agree with ID. That's why the evo/materialist/atheists are scared.