It is pseudoscience, though; you can tell, because science has rules that "Intelligent Design" does not follow.
The scientific method requires that you don't start with your conclusion already in place. Instead, you look at the available data, form a hypothesis, and then do further research in order to see if the hypothesis bears up.
Any scientific claim must be falsifiable -- that means one must be able to think of a possible observation that, if true, would prove the claim to be false. Intelligent Design is inherently unfalsifiable, because it asserts a supernatural creator that is beyond the ability of science to perceive or measure.
A scientific theory must explain all the available data, must have extensive evidence to support it, and must make as few unfounded assumptions as possible. ID has no evidence to support it; it has only "I can't imagine how this could have happened without a creator" and attacks on the "competing" explanation provided by evolution, as though ID supporters think that by discrediting evolution, ID will win by default.
A scientific theory must have predictive power; using the theory, one must be able to draw accurate conclusions about how a relevant scenario will turn out. ID has no predictive power.
There is no exhaustive study done by ID proponents. There is no research, no experimentation, no testing. There is only arguing against real science and repeated insistence that their own pet idea IS TOO real science.
What is unclear about this?