Does Deep Ecology require intelligent design?

Friends of mine have wondered why the Deep Ecology or "Gaia hypothesis" people do not support intelligent design. Given that they see the ecology as a "great, stable, unified, and even loving community" - to quote one such friend, philosopher David Rice III - they ought to welcome ideas that show that it was designed that way. The skinny from a key Gaia hypothesis site:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By 1979 James Lovelock had published some of his ideas in a first book Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth in which the statement of the specification of the Gaia Hypothesis had become somewhat better defined. In this book we find him putting forward the postulate:

'...the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways.''

Elsewhere, in relation to the definition of Gaia we find the following:

"The entire range of living matter on Earth from whales to viruses and from oaks to algae could be regarded as constituting a single living entity capable of maintaining the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts...[Gaia can be defined] as a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback of cybernetic systems which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."

[ ... ]

"To what extent is our collective intelligence also a part of Gaia? Do we as a species constitute a Gaian nervous system and a brain which can consciously anticipate environmental changes?" [p147]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, surely the Gaians do not believe that this balancing act is all just some big accident. And if they do, they are undercutting their own position.
Note: Here is another interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Gaia hypothesis states that the temperature and composition of the Earth's surface are actively controlled by life on the planet. It suggests that if changes in the gas composition, temperature or oxidation state of the Earth are caused by extraterrestial, biological, geological, or other disturbances, life responds to these changes by modifying the abiotic environment through growth and metabolism. In simplier terms, biological responses tend to regulate the state of the Earth's environment in their favor. This implies that all life forms together have some sort of common purpose or mind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Another friend thinks that the Gaians avoid ID because so many traditional theists espouse it, and they themselves are unchurched, crunch granola types. That so?