Your "explanation" of things contains the usual amount of hand-waving and pseudo-scientific jargon that most ID folks seem to come up with, so it's as good as any other explanation I've read. Unfortunately, none of it is measurable, none of it is testable, and, therefore, none of it is science. Your theory, and all those of other Intelligent Design proponents, is as good as L. Ron Hubbard's "theta", or George Lucas' "force."

ID is nothing other than a manufactured vehicle to bring the teaching of "religion" (read: Jesus) to more people, and to do so under the guise of science education. ID's basic premise is "(science) + (???) = (an explanation of Life, The Universe, and Everything)" and the (???), no matter how they try to dance around it, is always "God." When you ask for data which supports the existence of God, all you get is flawed, circular logic like "well, evolution doesn't explain X, so X proves the existence of God."

Many ID folks will even admit that they cannot provide data to support the "God" part of their equation, but insist that the theory still warrants serious discussion in science classes. Science did not get where it is today by throwing one's arms up in the air and saying "well, we can't explain this huge, gaping hole in the foundation of our theory, but let's teach it as fact anyway!" Instead of starting out with a hypothesis and conducting experiments to test it, ID started out with a desired conclusion, and fills in whatever "evidence" people will believe to reach that desired conclusion. That's not the scientific method I remember.

Evolution is not a perfect theory. Natural selection doesn't always follow the patterns that we expect it to. But conveniently injecting the fudge factor of "God" into the equation undermines scientific progress. Let's keep Jesus in religion classes where he belongs. Or, if you insist on teaching ID in science class, I insist that this be taught as well.