> Then you're contradicting yourself.
Nope. The claim was made that all Darwinism was was the a priori assumption of no superanturalism. Darwinism is far mroe than that. That initial assumption is one of the first steps, but it's hardly the sum total as you seem to be suggesting.
> you've defined Darwin's theory as the proposition that ID is false.
Incorrect, as usual. ID is bad/nonexistent science, but Darwinism is far more than that. ID, on the other hand, is very little more than "I don't like Darwinism."
For an engineer, you don't seem to have too good a grasp on basic mathematical axioms. If A is defined as "not B", then B has to equal "not A".