I never said it was, nor am I proposing that it is. The opposite of "including fairies, angels and Jesus in science" is not Baconian inductivism.
You've "lawyered" your own definition of science, too, by insisting (on a non-empirical basis) that it must only deal with natural phenomena, with "natural" being a term that is wholly arbitrary.
Whatever. You're a lost cause. If you want to go on in your fantasy world, believing that all the world's scientists don't know what they're doing because they don't consult your bible before doing science and only you have the answer because you're willing to consider demonic possession, leprechauns, Loki, and who knows what else... be my guest.
Again, as long as I know where you're coming from, I will generally understand why you come to the conclusions you do. The results are consistent with your assumptions, as they should be. The ubiquitous presence of organized matter that perfroms specific functions is also consistent with the assumption that the universe is a product of intelligent design, as it should be.
Again with the second-grade logical errors... "Gosh, there's air to breathe. The presence of air is consistent with the assumption that the universe is the product of the creative power of an invisible pink unicorn.... Look, stars!! More evidence consistent with the invisible pink unicorn theory. Grass and animals to eat grass... Surely if there wasn't an invisible pink unicorn, these wouldn't be... Organized matter performing according to laws!! More evidence of the invisible pink unicorn!!"
It would be better if you were not so inclined to respond with hyperbolic invective. The case for intelligent design is reasonable. So is the case for evolution. So is the case for various combinations of the above. Insofar as all of them attempt to present the bigger picture of what objective reality is about, none of them qualify as empirical science, but as shaping principles, which are also a necessary part of science.