Cog.  My original assumption, probably not well illustrated, had to do with origin of life.  My example may have insinuated ID, but this was not the intended argument.  But, since you want to talk about it, okay..

First of all, I understand that ID, when speaking of design, assumes  this from indirect logic.  ID does not necessarily disagree with evolution theory, it's just that evolution cannot explain the origin of life.  Perhaps one day, with "time", science/evolution might be able to explain the origin of life, but until then.....well, we will probably all be dead by then  

ID, as I understand the theory, doesn't necessarily posit God as the origin of design or life.  ID is independant of YEC, OEC and CS, although one or all of these camps may invoke ID, it is just an axiom that will stand or fall on its own merits.  ID also predicts that science will come short of explaining the origin of life, but, ID itself too cannot prove the existence of gods or a God.

Now, those who understand ID better than me have an opportunity to educate me more at this time.

Having said that, what is my answer to your question(s)?

I think your argument is based on the naturalistic axiom that all things can be explained naturally via scientific methods.  So, since we cannot observe anything but what is natural, even if there is design in nature, a god or gods is not necessary for that explaination.  Therefore the ID argument is redundant and doesn't have meaning.

My position assumess that God is the originator of life (all things) which means that all observable data exists because "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" and "in him, we live, move and have our being" and "without him was nothing made that was made" etc.  So, what ever I observe will show the work of God.  This then means that I probably will fail to answer your question satifactorily.

However,  I offer this explanation:

Maj earlier spoke of corruption in the original design.  I don't necessarily agree with that view - but I regress to my original illustration to draw out an example in a similar way (with a little twist).  A man who builds a house becomes meaningful when speaking of observed design.  Why?  Because we can observe man's design which differs from things that "are".  In this case, the man has manipulated nature and the results are seen.  But representing the house as our universe and God as the man fails because we cannot observe anything non-designed in our observable surrounding.  This means that there is no comparison to make God's design meaningful, thus.....okay, wait....can we then conclude that a designer/God doesn't exist?  Hmm....

Back to my illustration.  Man manipulated nature in order to show design (house).  Has God ever manipulated his creation to reveal he exists?  I think so!!  I now submit the bible.  Is it just a manmade book of fantasy and fairy tales, or is it a revelation of God in his own creation?  And how can we detect God designing a "house" in our natural surrounding (his creation)?

I will stop at this point - I don't want to get carried away with many words unless I totally misunderstand your question and am going off in a different direction (so not answering your question) - or/and this explanation is not acceptable to you right from the start?.  

Ps.  I am not not representing strictly the ID camp here - there are other arguments that ID uses which would exclude my ramblings