The less we know...

This is just a minor observation, but I have seen several remarks in uncommondescent and other ID sites that, as we learn more and more about how organisms work, we realise that there increasingly is even more that we don't know. I agree with this sentiment. But then the ID folk go and state (as, for example, commenter gpuccio did at uncommondescent under "Ultraconserved Phenotype", Dec 13th) that this is support for ID. The reationale seems to be that unintelligent forces can't shape all this newly complexity, and only intelligence can. But that seems to be the exact opposite of what they should be arguing. Given that it gets harder and harder for intelligence to explain all this new information, it would be harder and harder for intelligence to design it. In other words, this is actually an argument against ID.