For the purposes of the scientific study of the machinery of life, yes.
"In that case, you would have to abandon any notion of reason, accountability, or will, as all of them entail aspects of not only non-determinism, but choice. If physics is a complete description of reality, then choice is non-existent. If choice exists, then physics is incomplete by itself."
Not at all. Reason, accountability, Free will and other similar objects depend upon physics for their very existence. Without the physics, there is no machine to support rational thought and exercise Free will. Those things don't exist on their own, they are creations of the machine called mind. Biologists know that those things are functions of the brain.
"While many creationists (including myself) think that supernatural occurrences are a part of life and the history of life, Intelligent Design does not rely on the failure of the laws of physics for any aspect -- only their incompleteness as described above.
I said ID says they are insufficient. IDers complete them with supernatural forces in an arbitrary way. Well that's not science. If the supernatural forces can't be demonstrated so others can reliably and repeatedly examine them, then they are not a proper subject for science. Especially biology, since the machinery of life can be known and understood with physics. Physics which has shown itself to be complete and sufficient to know and understand the world.
" when multiple pieces are working in coordination to accomplish a goal that is accomplished by precise tasking, timing, and tooling, it is evidence that many choices were made, and all made with the end-purpose (teleology) in mind.
It is not evident at all that any choices were made. You are talking the results of function of a biological machine. You are talking about the machine which became as it is, because the physics of this world are what they are. There is no evidence whatsoever that any biological organism was designed. All the evidence points to life arising out of the physics.
"It is not an abandonment of physics to think that things were built with a purpose."
You are talking about life, so in that case it is. Purpose is not physical, it doesn't appear in the physics at all.
" Is it an abandonment of physics to think that my monitor was built with a purpose?"
It's clear it was and anyone can point to the beings that made it and examine them. It is also a dumb device, w/o life that can not arise out of the physics at all. It can't duplicate itself, nor can it support the objects of mind. The processor itself can't even do that.
" This would indicate one of two things: "
LOL... Your logic suffers from bias. You should have written and pondered (c) sentient beings do exist and they arise out of the physics of this world. That is what science holds and is the only scientific possibility, because the physics of this world is observed to be complete and consistent.
" ...sentience is something that is outside of examination altogether.
Sentience can be examined scientifically, as long as it remains an object of this world. That means the sentience that arises out of the physics.
"creationists (including myself)"
You realize that creationist means literal Gen and a 6 day creation?
"Not at all. (a) Reason, accountability, Free will and other similar objects depend upon physics for their very existence. (b) Without the physics, there is no machine to support rational thought and exercise Free will. (c) Those things don't exist on their own, (d) they are creations of the machine called mind. (e) Biologists know that those things are functions of the brain."
A is true
B is possibly true
C is possibly true
D is necessarily false (viewing mind as entirely machine) for any standard concept of free will
E is incorrect, as biologists have found many corollaries of consciousness, but this is improper to call these parts of consciousness itself.
Once you understand that viewing mind as a machine prohibits the possibility of free will, the rest of the argument falls apart.
"You realize that creationist means literal Gen and a 6 day creation?"
This is actually incorrect. A creationist is anyone who thinks that God created directly. Progressive creationists follow the geologic record. Young earth creationists are not necessarily tied to a young age of the cosmos (or even the earth), but more specifically the geologic column (See Roth's Origins: Linking Science and Scripture for the reasons).
I myself am a young-earth creationist, but there is no reason to necessarily link the word "creationist" with "young-earth creationist".