What in the world makes you think 'direct' observation is needed before a field of study can be considered science?
Direct observation is simply a way of adding veracity to scientific method and expression. What in the world makes you think ID is less scientific than any other theory if direct observation is left out of the equation? I consider astrology to be scientific insofar as it entails direct observation. Evolutonism does not enjoy as much.
You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.