I think you're directing that accusation at the wrong side. It is the ID movement that is inconsistent on the matter. They use the examples you give while also asserting that naturalism rules out design as a possibility (and therefore denying that any of them exist).
The opponents of ID do not do this.
What you need to recognise is that ID is not science, nor is it trying to be science. ID is a political/religious movement, attempting to change science curricula to be more in tune with their religious beliefs. And it's a very nasty and unpleasant movement, too.
™ Version 4.2
