ID assumes a designer other than natural selection. There is no naturalistic reason to make such an assumption. No deficiency has been pointed out in the current mainstream precedures and methods of science.
If it isn't the spaghetti monster, what is it?
True.
There is no naturalistic reason to make such an assumption.
False. We know that it can happen, because we make it happen. The "design" hypothesis is therefore known to be valid.
No deficiency has been pointed out in the current mainstream precedures and methods of science.
False also. We know that there are a lot of biological phenomena that have come about due to intelligent action (by humans). By claiming that the design hypothesis is "unscientific," you're basically surrendering any claim to being able to correctly explain those phenomena. That is a serious deficiency for a discipline that purports to be able to explain how biological phenomena came about.
None of this excuses a person who proposes a "design" hypothesis from the normal standards of scientific verification. But the fact is that one probably can propose the necessary tests (we did so above, for example).
The real issue is that "science" seems to be staunchly opposed to admitting "design" hypotheses to be proposed in the first place. And that, sir, is bad science.