You may be right, of course, but the notion isn't scientific and oughtn't to be taught as such
IF God in fact built it by direct manipulation but "science" reaches a different conclusion, then the shortcoming is in science. But if science shows that it could have happened some other way, then it probably did. Science has the obligation to assume a natural cause in order to try to discover natural processes behind all observations but it has no right to assume there was a natural process and then present that assumption as a fact without filling in every step of the process and answering every question.
Intelligent design is the sudden appearance of purposeful information in nature. Apparent order can appear at random locally within disorder. Such order is indistinguishable from design because science cannot decide whether it had a purpose. But some order, such as a working pocket watch (or a complete living cell?) appearing spontaneously, is so improbable that intelligence and purpose beyond the observable should be inferred. Something that occurs only on an infinitesimal chance is indistinguishable from a "miracle". And a universe of finite size and duration having appeared spontaneously on an infinitesimal chance is too small for another infinitesimal chance occurance to happen within it unrelated to the rise of an anthropic intelligence able to appreciate it. Such an occurance would be proof of intelligent design.
If man is natural, then man's intelligence is natural. If intelligence is natural, then "supernatural" intelligence, if it exists, is perfectly natural and remains a viable alternative explanation so long as any question remains. It becomes the leading explanation if it is shown that but for an infinitesimal chance, something could not have happened except for intelligent intervention. Either way it is amenable to scientific deduction.
