If you saw a science text that listed scientific reasons the universe appears to be designed, without mention to God, would you oppose it? I ask because there are a lot of scientific reasons to support ID at least as a theory. None of these reasons resort to any religious text, or seek to support any religious view. Really, all ID is about is pointing out that scientific evidence coupled with human intellect can come to a rational understanding of the universe that includes a creator. Read "Mere Creation" and tell me ID is not about science.
_____________________________________________________________
If one wants to rationalize that this blue marble was created then I say why stop there? We might as well/better hypothisize/postulate that there was a creator of the one that created this marble. And then there is his creator too.
Whats the point or where is this leading? Who is the real God? I can't help but bring G into the discussion because the "I" in ID is referring to God.
If there is scientific evidence for it, then it is worthy of inquiry. But I think you are deliberately avoiding the "design" part of the theory because you have a problem with the "Intelligent" part. One way or another, there is a design to living beings. It was either intelligence or chance that produced it. When science points to one or the other, it is doing so as science. There is evidence for both, and neither side's evidence is going to go away until science deals with it.