That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them.
There you go again....trying to redefine science. I think you'll need something better than ID to be successful in this.
1) Did you read Dembski's explanation that I linked to?
2) Do you have any logical responses other than the two I listed: 1) deny that phenomenon exist beyond the ability of science to explain, or 2) admit science needs to grow.
You have yet to offer a reason to support your view.