That would be news to Behe, Dembski and the rest of the Discovery Institute fellows.
For the record, I'm not specifically an advocate of Behe, Dembski, or the Discovery Institute and will happily acknowledge that plenty of what passes for "Creation Science" isn't. That said, I think that the core idea that we can differentiate the created from the natural is science and is a legitimately scientific way to approach the question of whether life is natural or created, even if a particular line of reasoning or study fails to be fully scientific. I think that's the mistake a lot of ID critics are making here. They are attacking specific and often questionable ID claims rather than the core point, which is entirely valid. If life weren't natural, how might we figure that out? And just as we learn things about natural electromagnetic signals via SETI, we can learn about natural evolution via ID. Don't you find it useful for evolutionists to propose natural explanations for complex biological features in response to ID challenges?