Since you've failed to provide a workable definition of "supernatural" other than, outside the realm of science, you're merely making a circular argument.
The fact is, anything that exists, in reality, and has an observable effect on the real world, can properly be the subject of a scientific theoretical model. Whatever label you put on it doesn't change that fact.
When you make a scientific hypothesis about something that exists, be it a unicorn, a quark or a designer, you are assigning properties to it, properties that can be tested. A thing that can do anything or everything cannot be the object of scientific investigation. If it has no limits then you can't propose a situation where its actions can be distinguished.
You're like the energizer bunny of obtuse irrelevance. If you don't know what ordinary 6th grade spelling test words mean, I'd strongly recommend you try looking them up.
The fact is, anything that exists, in reality, and has an observable effect on the real world, can properly be the subject of a scientific theoretical model. Whatever label you put on it doesn't change that fact.
...which means, mr. attentive, that if ID proves to be the case, there's no reason to think it will likely deepsix evolutionary biology, since what we already know and puzzle about from fossils and microbiology isn't going away. As I might possibly have mentioned already, but who the heck has the attention span to wade through your definition-circus to remember what the fuss was about in the first place?