Considering that we just had a discussion in which you denied that ID is primarily about the supernatural version of ID, If you can't distinguish between "artificial" and "supernatural", then this is an "artificial" rathole, and you're the rat who intentionally designed it. I am inclined to think you are simply trolling for amusement to see how long you can get someone to twist in definitional limbo before wising up, and unless you come up with sometihng meaty to talk about, I think I'll probably decline to participate further.
I never even accepted your premise that there's any kind of meaningful distinction between artificial and "supernatural". You're the one who brought it up, not I. It's up to you to explain what you're talking about.
I have no problem understanding what ID is. It's the view that some sort of deliberate, intelligent tinkering was necessary in order to account for the various features of life, that they could not have come about through naturalistic processes. You can disagree with it all you want, but you seem unable to argue against it without either misrepresenting it, or word-gaming it to death.