You may have an idisyncratic notion of ID that makes it worthy as something other than science, but the ID movement, including the proposition that it should be taught in science classes as an alternative to evolution, is that it is science. And this is why it is exactly fair to argue in terms of science. You say that evolution cannot be done by experiments, but there is real evidence for it, where there is none for a Grand Designer, except for the wish that there is one. More elegant? - you meant more fantastic.

But, again, this is not to say that there defintely is no God, or that evolution is God's mechanism. Science, though, is about evidence. We have philosophy and religion for people to go beyond the material - to go deeper, if you wish. The whole point is that ID is not science, and in particular, it should not be taught in science classes as an alternative to real science - an elegance in evidentiary explanations, not an elegance in imaginary fancy.