Yes, that is the essence of what you said, but apparently you aren’t even fathoming the ramifications of your own arguments.
>>Yes, that is the essence of what you said, but apparently you aren’t even fathoming the ramifications of your own arguments.<<
The ramification are straightforward: If it is part of the natural universe, it is science. If it is supernatural it is philosophy. There can be no joining of the two.
When you say you have ID as science, I will then demand it be testable, repeatable, consistent, falsifiable and all the rest of the criteria demanded by science.
It does not get easier. Put up or admit this is just sophistry.
Oh, and just for fun, I noticed the OP does not mention a “designer,” which means it is not even traditional creationist ID.
Which really makes it fun for the whole family.