First,
James Tour is an Intelligent Design stooge...
The Baha'i Faith believes that Creation by God was a natural creation by the Laws of NAture God determined...
Wouldn't that second sentence qualify you as an "Intelligent Design stooge" as well? If not, why not?
Your version certainly looks like ID and/or divine creationism to me.
One version posits that life is a direct special creation, the result of God reaching into the natural world and working a miraculous act of creation here on Earth (or wherever life originated).
The other version posits God initially producing the "laws of nature" in some grand miraculous act of universe creation, with the "laws of nature" (and presumably the initial conditions to plug into those laws) crafted in such a way that things subsequently evolve as God intended.
I believe that St. Augustine's theology of miracles is consistent with the latter version. Augustine argued that God works miracles not by capriciously violating his own natural laws, but by exploiting very obscure 'small-print' laws originally built into nature at creation. Augustine's motivation wasn't to defend science, which didn't exist in his time, but rather to protect divine consistency.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. Life ends up being divinely created and intelligently designed either way. All that's different is the manner of the divine creation event.
My position remains a highly skeptical agnosticism regarding both versions. While I think that it's very important to acknowledge that science currently doesn't know how life originated, I personally lean towards the more naturalistic approach. I can't "prove" that's the best way forward though. It's more a matter of faith at this point. Abiogenesis is a
research program, not a
scientific explanation. We don't even know whether a scientific explanation will be forthcoming or not. Personally, I look to science and its methodological naturalism to perhaps someday solve the riddle. I'm doubtful that religion can, since all it seems to me to do is further mystify things, by gratuitously introducing a 'God' posit that's inexplicable by its very nature.
But my choice to embrace a more naturalistic alternative is still a choice. It doesn't licence me to try to insult 'ID' proponents into oblivion or to pretend that I'm somehow more intelligent, thoughtful or rational than they are.