No it wouldn't. It just lowers the subjectively determined odds. God, or something, might have designed it regardless of anything we can detect--just as is the case with the actual existence of an ether for light to travel through, or the earth being the center of the universe.
I am talking about Paley's hypothesis or theory regarding the creation of life.
The natural world indeed has an objective reality independent of its discovery by science. For example, DNA, neutrons, microwaves were part of the natural world five hundred yrs ago, they just hadn't been discovered yet.
So the natural world is empirical. it can be observed by the senses. The behavior of the natural world can be expressed by laws that are consistent through time and space. They are repeatable and consistent from moment to moment and place to place. We can't observe electrons with our eyes directly. Yet we observe them in other ways and they obey regular laws. Electrons are naturalistic entities. Radioactive decay is a natural phenomenon. It is observable, though the exact moment of decay is not predictable but it follows repeatable laws.
Intelligence is more slippery. It seems to defy the natural world. It does not rigidly obey laws, It is not repeatable. We can't observe it with our senses. But we "obwerve" it with our minds. We observe its creations (math formula written on paper) No one has shown it is the result of natural laws operating on molecules and atoms. Is intelligence naturalistic or not?
So for discussion, I view the supernatural as something that fails the definition of the natural world. So can we show the existence of the supernatural without observing it in any way? CXan the supernatural be a legitimate part of science? Can the supernatural have a testable, scientific basis? I say YES