No, that is not science.

For a long time, I've been unclear as to the precise tenets of "intelligent design," (ID) and so I did a Google search. I skipped the first result (the Wikipedia entry for the term) and followed the second link, which brought me to intelligentdesign.org, a production of the Discovery Institute. The front page gives a one-sentence blurb:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Note that the first part of the sentence, taken alone, is quite vague and seems compatible with a position like deism. The contentious part is what follows: a rejection of natural selection.

Clicking on the "read more" link after the blurb brought me to a short FAQ. The third question asks, "Is intelligent design a scientific theory?". The site answers in the affirmative, and then goes on to be make some sever errors. Let us begin:

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

So far, so good. What is the hypothesis?

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

No, not the television series. CSI stands for "complex and specified information." How do we assess CSI?

One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.

Apparently they can recognize high levels of CSI. What next?

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

The ID "researchers" are terrible scientists. In real science, a researcher develops a hypothesis (something they think is true) and then tries to find evidence to support it. ID researchers don't bother with evidence, they just assume their hypothesis is true. Actually, they seem to be terrible logicians as well, because they assume the converse of their hypothesis is true.

Applying this kind of science to fruit, we get an allegory about an ID researcher. He starts with the hypothesis, "If an object is an apple, it tastes good." He does no testing of this hypothesis but assumes it to be true, and so fails to take into account that apples are sometimes rotten and not at all tasty. Then he eats a banana. It tastes good. He concludes that he has just eaten an apple. All the real scientists laugh at him. The Discovery Institute gives him a grant.