Sure it's intelligence, but that's not what ID is.
ID, at least as proposed by the leaders of the movement, has nothing to do with the beginning. It's all about the supposed inadequacy of evolution to explain what happened AFTER the beginning.
If you wanted to write some ID scriptures, they'd sound a lot like this:
It's more like this:
"200-300 million years after the beginning, the designer thought it would be really cool if bacteria could swim. Unfortunately he also saw that they were having trouble evolving their own means of locomotion. So the designer, in all his benevolence, decided to give them irreducibly complex flagella.
"After another 3 billion years or so, the designer decided that natural evolution was failing to produce enough phyla for his liking. So he set to work desiging all kinds of new body plans, resulting in the Cambrian explosion!"
ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology.
This is why your evolution argument is flawed,
Science invokes a natural cause and natural law element to explain evolution and design. How far must one travel back in time to reach the Biblical position of a "beginning".
*Note: Odd dimensional theories do not skip origin.*
Which beginning is it? Evolution's beginning, or Creation's? If you state Creation, then you admit intelligent design explaining a nature of the universe.