I am ever amused (and annoyed) at the ID debates--and the Darwinian religious/philosophical objections. The whole issue proves to me that this is a PHILOSOPHICAL debate--about the basis of science.
If you start with an a priori assumption that science can ONLY point to nature then of course any kind of intelligent design hypothesis or evidence is out of line. But of course that is an ASSUMPTION....based on a philosophical outlook as a given element. What is interesting is western science itself has a theistic basis--in that a good orderly Designer will have an orderly universe capable of being understood... many other ancient philosophies did not start with the assumption of an orderly law-abiding universe (hence the slow start of science). Once the Western world accepted order, then science became possible--and that order came about due to religion. Now with its successes, many scientists seem to want to drop any possibility of God or anything outside of nature--or their own understanding, and in the process, they throw away the basis of science.
All phenomena can be explained as occuring naturally. All phenomena can be explained as occuring supernaturally. The distinction between the two, while arbitrary, is not a distinction from which science can completely extricate itself.