I referenced the US National Academy of Science's take on ID above... here's Europe...
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes".[201] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism.
Not a lot of support out there for ID.
But to stay on the topic of the OP, I once again state my opinion that "theistic evolutionists" are NOT really ID'ers, and undoubtedly do not subscribe to the concepts put forward by ID'ers.
You can argue semantics and say that "if they believe in a God, then they must consider him intelligent, and so it's intelligent design"... but I am using the term "intelligent design" to refer specifically to the works of the likes of Michael Behe. I think it is misleading to use the term Intelligent Design (especially in caps as the OP did) in reference to anything other than the very specific works to which the term has been associated with.
The OP might as well have said "I think that theistic evolutionists believe in God..." well, of course they do, that's why they are theistic. Does that mean they agree with Michael Behe and irreducible complexity? Probably not.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.