To say that there is no designer that initiated the evolutionary process is just as unscientific as saying that there was.
Perhaps, but saying "There is no known reason for an intelligent designer to exist, there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, and we have an explanation that works perfectly well without considering this intelligent designer let's not consider it when we do our science since it seems to be an irrelevent entity for explanation purposes as per the principle of parsimony" seems to be perfectly scientific. And whilst this is rarely explicitly stated, this is what is basically being said.
It is scientific to assume it exists and make a test to detect it (falsfying one ID hypothesis), however it is not scientific to say that 'other scientists are wrong because a hypothetical entity could be responsbile but I have no evidence for its existence, but I think we should teach our kids about it because...well the alternative theory isn't complete and doesn't answer all the questions, or I don't understand or accept the explanations', which is what the ID movement is saying.
™ Version 4.2