[Intelligent design is a legitimate line of scientific inquiry.]
That depends on how you define "legitimate".
[It is not biblical creationism.]
You left out the word "overtly".
[It does not pre-suppose deity.]
You're right. It doesn't. Pre-supposing a diety in anything even remotely scientific would be utterly laughable, and most certainly wouldn't be allowed in a science classroom.
ID merely pre-supposes that the universe was created by "someone or something".
Now, follow the scientific method, and test it. Make sure your results are reproducible, and then submit them for peer review.
[It does however rattle to the core the fragile paradigm...]
In order to seriously compete as a scientific theory, ID must face serious scientific inquiry. Until and unless it has done so, you can't claim that it's rattling anything.
[...of neurotic atheists and dogmatic Darwinists who have already long abandoned objectivity in their oppressive rejection of the scientific method and freedom of conjecture.]
Namecalling? Awesome job, fuckwit.