That is not what I said at all.
Reading is FUNdamental.
I said science is in the natural realm. I already said upthread that if this guess (which is what it is scientifically) turns out to be the Einstein version of natural science to Darwin’s Newton, so be it.
NONE of it has a SINGLE thing to do with ID as used by creationists. The article does not either.
The fact you learned a science word today and almost used it correctly was pretty amusing, though.
Yes, that is the essence of what you said, but apparently you aren’t even fathoming the ramifications of your own arguments.