I'm saying that it's no longer rational to simply rule out the ID hypothesis as a priori impossible. And it also raises the threshold of proof for evolutionary hypotheses. You've noticed, I'm sure, that a lot of evolutionary "explanations" include a chain of "this must have happened next..." type statements, which are "scientific" only because they're made in the context of the assumption that only naturalistic processes can explain things.
In any cast, this would not help explain ongoing, observable examples of evolution.
And there's no reason to deny that those processes can and do occur. Your mistake is in continuing to assume that ID and evolution are either/or explanations, despite the fact that they're obviously not.
And no one here claims that the ID hypothesis is impossible.
That an unknown entity with unspecified abilities and limitations and for inscrutable purposes might have done whatever you just happen to observe is trivially true but this also makes it scientifically useless.