No, the initial assumption is that the evidence is consistent and can be analyzed and addressed through the scientific method (methodological naturalism). That methodology has produced the technology we use today (it is quite successful). Unless you are asserting that the Designer is above the natural - that he/she/it is supernatural - then the initial assumption of science can address the question of ID. If the putative designer leaves physical evidence then the current initial assumptions are sufficient to recognize and addresses that evidence. What is necessary, and so far not forthcoming, is a rigorous method to identify and differentiate evidence produced by an intelligent designer from evidence produced by nature.
It is more logical to assume that Earthly biology is produced through natural means than to assume an intelligent agent was produced through unnatural means and initially and continuously interferes with our biological world leaving no obvious evidence of its existence.
Well, the evidence isn't consistent. Where it isn't, the metaphysical claim is that it developed after the organisms split. Nothing methodological or natural about that.
And if you think that creation requires that the creator continuously interfere with out biological world, all it shows is that you don't understand creation.