@gbrooks9, I think @eddie is correct here. I think you are misrepresenting the ID case.
I think he is correct to point out that an architect's blueprint is an example of design that is not miraculous. Though he put it more obtusely...
I think it is important to fairly represent positions, especially when we disagree with them.
The ID claim it that "design" is something that can be reliably recognized independent of consideration of the one doing the design, independent of the "designer". In line with this proposition, they are very careful to avoid talk about the designer. A key goal of the program is to objectively define "design" independently of the designing process or mind. This is why they use analogies to technology so often. To them it is more than an analogy, but an common intellectual category for biology (things God made) and technology (things man made). Though, of course, they do not reference "God" in this at all.
Notice, they are not making any claims about how designers design things, or their identity. They claim to be able to have a rigorous and scientific way of establishing that something is designed, without considering designers. It is possible the designer could have used entirely natural processes (as human designers and how God could have done too). Miraculous intervention is not at all required or implied by the observation of design. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the basic definitions being used here.
Now, of course, many IDists think that God "designed" by way of miraculous intervention. But not all think this way (see Behe and Denton)/ These are really separable issues.
So @eddie is entirely correct in his protest. It really isn't fair to equate design with miracles. That does just fail basic logic.
I think the real problem with the ID position does not require misrepresenting it.
On philosophical/theological level, there is a certain presumption that somehow God's designs are in the same category as human designs. Maybe this is true, but why would we think so? Is that really correct? Knowing what I know about biology, it looks really nothing like human designs. We draw analogies (as humans are want to do), but they are just weak analogies. Life is very very different than a cell phone or a computer program. Even if we could reliably detect human design, why would we think that would extrapolate to things that God designed?
On a scientific level, I see no case in science where design is considered without implicitly or explicitly modeling the designer. Design is not just defined by what natural causes can do, but also by what the proposed designer can do. Theories of design in science are at a very pragmatic level testing the hypothesis of the designer acting against the hypothesis of things acting on their own. This is what leads to real difficulty for ID in science, because scientists (like me) regularly ask to provide models of design and the designer (in contrast, SETI is happy to provide these models for their case). This is that is necessary to test ideas in mainstream science, but it directly contradicts the foundational premise of ID to provide actual models of design. They are claiming that design can be detected without this. I totally disagree with that premise, especially after working for decades in science. In the end, what ever they are doing it is not mainstream science.
For these reasons, I think there is a fundamental difference between "divine design" and "human design." The similarity is almost entirely a product of language, and does not extend much farther than that. They are more different than apples and oranges.
Regardless, let's start with accurately representing one another. We are still going to disagree. But at least that would be more honest.