I have no idea where you are going with this.
I asserted that saying "nature did it" is different from saying "god did it" because one can follow up by describing the processes of nature in ever increasing detail.
You have described ID as the claim that some unknown and unnamed entity having unknown abilities, limitations, methods and motives, did some unspecified thing at unspecified times.
This is not at all equivalent to saying in ever increasing detail, that all living things are related by descent, and that all physical sciences -- physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy -- must support this conclusion, and that all evidence discovered from this time forward, must be consistent with the claim.
It does not posit articles of faith, morals, doctrines or Holy writ – it is not religion.
It does not substitute for the theory of evolution because it addresses only “certain features” – not all features.
Like the theory of evolution, it is not an origin of life hypothesis, i.e. abiogenesis v biogenesis.
Most significantly, it does not specify the “intelligent cause,” which could be a phenomenon such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence. Neither does it specify a particular agent, such as God, or collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc. The Intelligent Design hypothesis does not specify either phenomenon or agent — much less any specific phenomenon or specific agent.
The hypothesis is on rather solid ground in that many of us have observed that creatures do in fact often choose their mates (intelligent cause) – and those choices directly affect the traits inherited by the offspring as compared to, say, blindly (undirected) breeding.
In sum, I do not see the Intelligent Design hypothesis as a competitor to the theory of evolution – nor do I see any reason to be concerned about it.