The word "necessarily" being key. I haven't said anything about "necessity" or even proofs. I am only stating what constitutes a reasonable theory based on the definition usally posted by evos. Intelligent design involves the organization of matter that behaves under predictable laws. The presence of such matter is ubiquitous. Therefore to infer intelligent design as present and operative throughout the universe is to indulge a reasonable explanation, or theory.
So can other things. You need to nail it down to ID being the cause, otherwise you're just making obvious general statements.
Therefore to infer intelligent design as present and operative throughout the universe is to indulge a reasonable explanation, or theory.
Only in the vernacular definition of theory, as in your personal guess or belief. I can respect the statement in that category, but not as science.