While this is pretty funny, I feel I should point out they're only using half the scpecification of Intelligent Design. There are two parts:
1. The less likely a pattern is, the more likely it is to have been designed by an intelligent agent. If the lists used in the example were randomly generated, they would all have equal likelihood, so this criterion is useless for the example given.
2. The more closely a pattern matches an external, independently-specified pattern, the more likely it is to have been designed by an intelligent agent. This is the same principle used in SETI searches, which look for sequences of primes etc. to identify signals with intelligent sources.
IIRC, the total likelihood of intelligence is the product of the two parts.