Well stated, except that there is circumstantial evidence SUGGESTING ID, and it is abundant and compelling.
ID isn’t fact either. We haven’t proven it. We can say that for the Earth and all of its species to develop as they have through some sort of randomized series of events is so statistically unlikely that it is virtually impossible.
That’s the problem with modern science is that we extrapolate observations into facts, and we skip the experimentation, evaluation, and peer review.
When Einstein proved to himself that photons behaved like waves when you weren’t observing them to particles when you were. He never offered any explanation about why that was, but he proved it was happening.
He also proved entanglement was real. ‘Spooky action at a distance’ was real. Again, he never talked about how or why it was happening, just that it was.
I will say that trying to believe in evolution is tougher than believing in intelligent design, for me at least.
The math against this all being an accident is so compelling it is tough to get your mind around the degree to which it is impossible.
I also tend to think anything that breaks down and crashes in Roswell, NM and doesn’t provide for ‘rapid deceleration syndrome’ probably wasn’t responsible for setting the Earth and its various species in motion either.
From the facts of the intricate and functional make up of the thing, one can deduce the thing was not an accident but made with purpose by an Intelligent Designer, just like after inspecting a car. This is an unavoidable conclusion based on factual evidence.
You can parse out "fact" in different ways I suppose, but I think the point is something with evidence way beyond a reasonable doubt is considered proof at least in a court of law. I know that science is based on theory, but theory borne out by solid scientific method is generally considered proof, I think. So maybe there's a fine line between proof and fact, but I think the point is made.