It seems to me that there is one major problem with ID, which most people have likely noticed. If it is to be a scientific theory, then the intelligent designer must be proved. My question--can you prove this entity, of which there is no evidence for (as far as I know). If you can't, then ID becomes faith based. And before you say the same about evolution, don't. Science does not have faith. Instead, one understands, one does not believe.
I don't think this OP makes its case very well. In fact I'm not sure there is even a case to be made in terms of demanding absolute proof for anything in a scientific context.
Could you perhaps provide some scientific rationale for why the application of ID theory would require prior proof of the existence of the intelligent designer?