Doesn't ID implies a creator?
Technically no. In practice yes. But that doesn't make it creationism.
Intelligent design - Wikipedia
ID itself does not specify the identity of the designer. The major promoters take pains to publicly separate it from religion and the biblical account of creation.
The designer could be the archtypical SciFi Horror Green Monster Drooling Spacecreature ...
The common usage of "creationism" in America is creation according to a literal interpretation of the bible ... which is not ID.
Creationism - Wikipedia
Creationism is a belief that the origin of the universe and everything in it is due to an event of creation brought about by the deliberate act of a creator god.
Most religions have significant creation myths, but 'creationism' in its modern form is associated with the religious tradition of conservative Christianity which includes members of many groups and denominations. Fundamentalists are credited as the originators of the movement, but Creationists are also Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Wesleyan/Holiness and conservatives of mainline Protestant churches, such as the Confessing Movements, and some Roman Catholics, Jews and many Muslims.
In ID the design process is ongoing -- a constant tweaking of the design if you will -- and does not confine itself to a single moment of creation. The fact that this makes it fundamentally incompatible with creationism seems to escape the attention of most proponents. And the fact that the "tweaking" must be done by supernatural action means that it is a faith ("Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.").
Even if the activating agent and the whole implementation process is purely natural (such as radiation causing mutation causing change over time with selection by survival and sounding a lot like evolution ... ) the belief of a designer behind the process is based on faith. Note that there is no fundamental incompatibility between ID and evolution.
See
is ID properly pursued? (click) thread for more discussion on what ID (should not be and) is and (what it should be and) is not.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist