That's not what Intelligent Design is, you've described theistic evolution.
OK, maybe I'm confused, but isn't that how many think Intelligent Design works?
I mean, many IDer's like Behe accept evolution. They just propose that evolution by itself is insufficient somehow due to irreducible complexity. So how else would a designer operate other than guide the process? And how to guide it other than futz with mutations?
How do YOU define Intelligent Design?
Just wondering, because I'm probably conflating concepts here.
The idea is that aspects of nature, such as organs are too complex to have evolved, irreducible complexity means that something such as an organ couldn't have evolved, the parts are irreducible, none of the parts work without the others, therefore there cannot have been a precursor organ, therefore evolution could not have occurred. Intelligent Design is a statement that evolution as a description of nature, the origin of species, is false. Intelligent Design is just creationism with different language.
Theistic evolution, which many of the opponents of Intelligent Design believe in, does not state that anything is irreducibly complex, they believe that evolution is a correct description of nature, the origin of species. They believe that a god intervenes not to solve problems, they accept that everything at present could evolve on its own, but to select for whatever its plan is, which is what you described. Theistic evolutionists believe in evolution, they're not creationists.
Intelligent Designers, as creationists, deny evolution occurs (selectively, but then most creationists accept dogs came from wolves, so most of them are selective). Theistic evolutionists accept evolution but believe in miracles, like a lot of Christian scientists. Both views are deeply flawed, but creationists deny reality, which is worse.
