I think we need the long version. The theory makes specific predictions. Your objections are so vauge as to be incomprehensible to me.....that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't.
Really, why not? Didn't evos do the same thing with PE? Evos have variation in their interpretation of HOW evolution did it while sticking with the Naturalisic framework. Creationists should have the same options. Whatever do you mean by "filtering evidence"?
In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working. Again, why? The theory makes several testable predictions. Why isn't that science?
No. It's simply the best explanation for the evidence.
I don't know what's so complicated about my statement. You postulate " the Designer exists". No observations. No evidence. I don't recognize a scientific process. It's plain old theology.