Let's take a hypothetical here. Suppose you find a watch in a field (really, essentially all ID arguments boil down to this). Is the most interesting question: Did somebody make this watch? No. A rational person will quickly move beyond this question to others such as: Why is the watch in this field?, What is the watch for?, and probably penultimately What kind of person would make this watch? (assuming watches are a fairly unique thing).
These questions about life would boil down to: Why is there life on Earth? What is life for? What kind of creator would make life in its present form? Remember, ID is a "science," so religious answers to these kinds of questions would be inapplicable. Instead, we would have to interpret the earthly situation from the standpoint of the only sentient, intelligent thing we've ever come in contact with, us.
So, life on earth would essentially be a very large, diverse ant farm for whatever creator there is out there. If you, as a person with an ant farm, specifically introduce diseases to this ant farm, you are either experimenting on the ant farm or are a sadistic nut job. Neither really implies that you care one way or the other about individual ants in the ant farm. To assume the existence of a second, malevolent creator (as, incidentally, Christianity does) would violate the hell out of Occam's Razor.
Also, such examples as mistakes found in 'evolutionarily related' organisms' genomes, such as the vitamin C synthesis gene in primates, would also indicate something about the creator. If you're going to, taking genomes as an analogy for computer code, write over a billion lines of code, make the same mistake over and over again in programs that you have designed to be very similar (primates), this would imply one of two things: either you copied and pasted the code or you're pathologically stupid and specifically make the same mistake over and over again. If you can copy and paste code, why wouldn't you copy and paste the code from other programs you wrote that were slightly less similar (like other mammals)? This would imply that you wrote the code from scratch for primates after you had already written it from scratch for other mammals. And the persistence of these types of mistakes indicates that, for a given gene, the creator copied and pasted sometimes and wrote from scratch other times. If a human engineer were to do this (with a design that had already been proven to work), we would call them insane.
So, by all means, let's teach ID in schools. However, the rules of science teach us that it is not ok to suspend the rules of logic, ever. If we find an intelligent life form that acts insane at all times, we must, from our experience with intelligent life forms, assume that the life form is insane. From the slight smattering of evidence I've provided here, the creator is either an indifferent lab scientist/sadistic nut job or otherwise completely insane. And having presented the ID "truth," it is not fair to stop there. We must present our findings on what the "intelligent" designer might have been. And when we start teaching kids that the creator of the universe was insane and in all probability, cared about us humans not at all (or actively disliked us), let's see how many of the 'scientific' IDists continue to hitch themselves to their little hypothesis.
P.s.-
Note that if you believe that God created a universe where humans would evolve (even abiogenically and all that), all these implications become moot. Say you're trying an algorithm to evolve a self-replicating radio from random assortment of electronic parts. The likelihood is that many of these self-replicating machines will be able to survive (even though they're not radios). And since you don't need a perfect radio, but a functional radio, you can tolerate some mistakes. Therefore, an 'evolved radio' will likely have extraneous parts and machines related to the radio will probably have the same extraneous parts as well. Furthermore, some of the non-radios that were still capable of replication may, on their own, evolve the ability to cannibalize other machines for parts (ie, disease). I'm sorry, but this type of Creator sounds much more Christian than the obviously insane, potentially sadistic, intelligent designer.
™ Version 4.2