I think there are a few problems here. First is the presumption that the “universes of discourse” of science and theology are totally separate. Theology is not restricted to the field of teleology, but also involves epistemology and ontology. That is, it does not only deal with the question of final cause, it deals with questions relating to all levels of causes. To totally separate the two universes take us into a realm where no logical applies. Scientists can say anything they want, and theologians can say anything they want and there can never be a contradiction, since their universes never overlap. I don’t think that you intend to say that, but it comes down to that.
A second problem lies in your airplane example; it flies because it belongs to a physical world with laws that govern such things, and also because of the human intentions related to flying and the destination. But this presumes two autonomous entities are cooperating, the airplane governed by physical laws, and the pilot (and all the other humans that were involved in putting him in the cockpit). The pilot has no control of the physical world that allows flight, and the physical world does not control human intentions. This is dualism, not Christian theism.
I would propose a different analogy that would allow you to refine what you mean by God “guiding” evolution. In this analogy I am wandering around a city trying to get to the home of a friend. In one possible scenario my friend meets me and then guides me to his home. I could have gotten anywhere completely on my own, but my friend steps in to make sure I get to the intended destination. I sense (though I could be wrong) that this is the sense in which theistic evolution holds that God guides evolution.
Another possible scenario is that the friend’s home I am trying to locate is actually on another planet. I can never get there on my own. I only get there because my friend comes to me and, using means that are completely beyond my own, takes me to his home. This is the scenario that roughly corresponds to ID. There are natural processes in play, but they are totally inadequate for the purpose. It goes beyond the guidance involved in the first scenario and involves actual supernatural intervention.
The third problem is that ID’s differences with TE are not at all on theological grounds, but on scientific grounds. ID asserts that no evolutionary process alone can explain the existence of any life, far less human life. There are barriers it simply cannot cross without purposeful intelligent intervention. If this purposeful intervention is what TE means by the term guidance, then TE is ID. If it is less than that, the scientific evidence is inadequate to establish evolution as either a cause or a means.
ID has not challenged the theology of TE. TE could perhaps be framed in such a way as satisfy a broad view of Christian theism. The challenge has been in the scientific universe of discourse. Evolution lacks explanatory power as a theory, and so far the data do not support it.