Of course it's faulty science. Either ID is a euphamism for divine creationism, in which case it's outside the realm of science, or it has the problem of who designed the intelligent designer. Either way, while it may possibly be true, it isn't science. What observation can you make that would lead you to conclusively say that something is NOT designed? If there is no such observation, then ID is not falsifiable and is thus not science.
Dembski:
Indeed, who sets the rules of science? The very demand that science explain in terms of natural rather than intelligent causes is itself applied selectively. Whole branches of science already presuppose that features of the natural world can display unequivocal marks of intelligence causation, thereby clearly signaling the activity of an intelligent designer (cf. anthropology, archeology, and forensic science). Nor need the intelligences inferred in this way necessarily all be human or even earthbound. Consider, for instance, NASA's SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) in which certain radio signals from outer space would with full confidence be interpreted as signaling the presence of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are reliable criteria for inferring intelligent causes. Certain special sciences already admit as much. Why then refuse their admission into biology?
Oh? Why?
This is not a scientific statement, but a statement of faith.
"What observation can you make that would lead you to conclusively say that something is NOT designed? If there is no such observation, then ID is not falsifiable and is thus not science."
If you haven't, you should read into the literature. The best book I read was "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" by William A. Debenski, although it might not be the best introduction to the topic.
Without getting into detail, scientists make judgments all the time as to whether artifacts are naturally occurring or "designed", i.e. made by intelligent creators. Think of archaeologists, determining whether earth mounds or rocks are naturally occurring or have been fashioned by men. Think of the Search for Intelligent Life people, listening to electromagnetic signals from the far corners of the universe-- obviously they've established criteria to judge whether those signals are random or contain information, which would indicate an intelligent creator of that information.
Also FYI, the ID literature is quite mathematical, which indicates to me that if the methodology is flawed, it should be a straightforward matter for scientists on the other side to disprove it. I am not a scientist myself so am not qualified to enter the debate, but I do have a better than average background in science and math and I'm watching for responses from the other side with great interest. So far, the ID literature I've read has been quite compelling and I've not read any rigorous refutation of it.