I'm no expert on ID so I shouldn't be voicing and opinion. But, since that doesn't seem to stop most of us here, I'll dive in.
There a lots of things going on with ID and they are pretty much all political.
The proponents don't really care what the ramifications of their idea is. They just want some little chink in the armour of evolutionary theory. All they want is to be able to say "This could not have evolved". Anything, any one thing at all. They keep trying.
They think that if something couldn't have evolved then the whole ToE will come tumbling down. They think that if something couldn't have evolved their has to be a designer. Your list includes various designer options. However, if RM + NS can't do that job maybe there is another way. So the leap to designer would be false anyway.
There are two unfortunate problems with ID:
1) Everything they've put forward so far as "impossible" hasn't been shown to be impossible. Each case is knocked down.
2) If they did get a toughie to deal with then all they have is an "I dunno" which they want to use as a gap in which to stuff a God of the Gaps. If you look around you will find arguments against this on both logical and a theological grounds.