A Timeless Argument

Jeff Jacoby explains the argument in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in his latest post. But I'm not sure I understand his argument. Consider the following sentences.

In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim.

A couple of questions.

1). If Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, why does it need to be taught in Science class?

2). How can you say that Intelligent Design implies a higher intelligence and yet does not make a religious claim?

The rest of the article is devoted to the more mainstream argument that Intelligent Design arguments should be presented in the classroom in the interest of balance. Still he shoots himself in the foot by admitting the religious nature of the argument, kind of negates the rest of it.