Hi Warren,
As I consider it, living things have both the 'appearance of design' (complexity, etc.) and 'appearance of common descent' (nested hierarchy, shared characters)
Suppose your proposition of ID and IC is correct. Then we may postulate that God created the flagella and put it in its place.
But as far as my judgement goes, IC/ID guys are not addressing the question of common descent. God could have created the ur-cell with all the machinery needed (Behe's scenario in 'Darwin's Black Box') but it would still have to diverge into millions of species that ever lived. AS far as I know, ID theorists does not attempt to take this into account, while Michael Behe opted for evolution by natural selection.
I'd like to know how ID explains what evolution explains best: nested hierarchy. For instance, the Designer designed cats ranging from housecats to lions, cheetahs and sabretooths, but apparently He is constrained by the initial 'cat' design so He cannot design, for instance, a herbivorous cat, or an aquatic cat with paddles or flippers... Evolution explains this as a pattern of common descent and evolutionary constraint, but I have yet to hear a good explanation from the other camp. What prevented the Designer from going beyond nested hierarchy?
On the other hand, if you agree with Behe that all those diversity is because of plain old evolution, then let me know.
™ Version 4.2