When you lump intelligence and design characteristics with the supernatural you are defining terms to fit your preconceived bias. The only way to study intelligence and design is as natural phenomenon.
If you are defining naturalism as only that which is phenomenological you are reject such concepts as mathematics, principles of the physical universe, such concepts as random, and a host of other principles fundamental to the work of sience. You can not pour a liquid into a beaker without relying on nonphenominological reality. Reason, for example, is nonphenomenological but it is a basic component of any science.
You are correct, this is a semantic issue. Unfortunately you have defined yourself out of business.
Please explain how to emprically differentiate between the following:
1) An irreducibly complex organism/biological mechanism
2) An organism/biological mechanism that appears complex but in actuality, naturally evolved, but we're just not 100% sure how yet
If you can give just one example of how to differentiate between these cases, you might have a case that ID is science. Until then, it is only so much pseudoscience...
side note: care to explain how "reason" - a product of electrochemical interactions in a cellular matrix - is "nonphenomenological"?
It is not I who defines intelligence and design into the supernatural, it is IDiots who claim design and intelligence without providing positive evidence in support of their assertions.