By definition, belief that powers operate beyond the laws of nature is unscientific.
As far as Newton and Kepler are concerned, both were very religious. But as important as their scientific contributions are, if they were have any inkling of technological complexity that exists today they would find it incomprehensible and probably satanic.
I don’t really know what Darwin thought of cosmology, but I do know he was heavily influenced by uniformitarianist Lyell, so I imagine he thought the universe had always existed. Of course the concept of an expanding universe was unknown at the time.
Lastly, nature is not random—it is the result of the properties of matter. What appears to be design is a reflection of that.
To this I would add that materialistic naturalism is also unscientific, unfalsifiable.
It is not the case, as is often presumed, that science is somehow supportive of the idea of atheism, or even that theism is not needed. Rather the existence or non-existence of anything “beyond nature” are equally non-falsifiable.
Intelligent design is not actually the foil of evolution as it implicitly accepts it. Rather it is the foil of materialistic naturalism.
“Lastly, nature is not random—it is the result of the properties of matter. What appears to be design is a reflection of that.”
Hang in there. It may come to you in a while.
Re: “By definition, belief that powers operate beyond the laws of nature is unscientific.”
And which “laws of nature” hold that nothingness can initiate itself into somethingness? Which ones hold that nothing can bring something into existence.