Actually you're just a little off on this one point. The rest was correct. ID is based on the lack of evidence of an evolutionary path from single cell to complex organisims. As Oblarg correctly pointed out it is a "God in the Gaps" argument that presumes there is no such a path, not that it is just unknown. The idea that complex life was seeded here by aliens also explains the "missing link". Still I really don't see the issue with presenting the idea as an unproven hypothosis with the caveat that it is a hypothesis. Natual Selection does fine explaining the progession of life over hundreds of generations, but it is mute on the origin of compex life.
I have to say I find the hostility on this board to the idea to be pretty remakable. By the tone of his posts I'd say Oblarg was foaming at the mouth and slapping his keyboard in his anxiety to get his words out. Others too. You know, 100 years ago you could be thrown in prision for teaching Natual Selection (look up the Scopes Monkey trial). 300 years ago they would excecute you for it. In Iran they still would. By the sound of most of you I think you would be in favor of similar treatment to anyone who presents an alternative idea like ID. Like I said, it's funny how the shoe is on the other foot now.
The point is still that creationism is not science, and yet it has been shoehorned into the science curriculum. There is good reason to be foaming at the mouth. If learning has to be the whipping boy for political agendas you lot are really in trouble.