1. This is about conclusions, not assumptions.
2. "Supernatural" is your word. All that's required by ID is intelligence.
3. Even if your use of the word supernatural is appropriate, it would be just as unscientific to conclude that there were no supernatural causes of the origin of species as it would be to conclude that there were.
> "Supernatural" is your word. All that's required by ID is intelligence.
Sorry, "supernatural" is inheirant to ID. Either ID posits a supernatrural godlike entity, or aliens. If aliens, they either came about through supernatural means... or they themselves evolved, which makes ID a pointless excercise.
> Even if your use of the word supernatural is appropriate, it would be just as unscientific to conclude that there were no supernatural causes of the origin of species as it would be to conclude that there were.
Wrong. It is not unscientific to reject a priori those things that are themselves naturally unscientific. Rejecting the "unicorns done it" hypothesis for the assassination of Abe Lincoln is not unscientific.