As @Rumraket points out, of course, this is contrary to what we know to be true, so that’s a bit of a problem.
But, also: it’s best to understand that this core non sequitur of ID Creationism has been around for decades now and has absolutely no traction at all. It’s led to nothing. Books have been written about it, and their impact upon biological thinking has been zero.
So why bother? Why bother attempting to just restate a failed and completely debunked notion? What is the point? Is this some kind of demonstration of faith, along the lines of self-flagellation? “I will abase myself intellectually, and claim to believe nonsense, because doing so affirms the depth of my commitment to YHWH, ineffable scribbler of codes”?
It would be another matter entirely if you had some novel observation to make about this – some insight that has escaped the attention both of the advocates of ID Creationism and its detractors, and that truly changes the whole nature of the question. I can’t blame you for not having it – it’s a near certainty at this point that no such insight is available anywhere – but why is it worthwhile to restate what has been so completely and thoroughly rejected by every biologist outside of a tiny clique of cranks?