The particular ID design explanation would look a lot more reasonable if it was accompanied by a testable hypothesis (they don’t have one), some explanation of mechanism (they don’t have one), accurate predictions (they haven’t made any), and the actual advancement of scientific knowledge through discoveries with practical application (they don’t have any). Where is the ID tiktaalik? Where are the practical applications of ID?
It’s hard to avoid that conclusion when we see IDers oppose evolution on the grounds that “something, something, Calvinism”, or “something, something, original sin”. And when IDers place evolution in opposition to creation, or belief in God, then it doesn’t look like their case is based on science.