What the heck is an inductive standard?
The primary activity of science is finding regularities in nature. That is another way of saying natural causes.
If you care to define ID as a series of events having causes that are still in operation, and if you deleneate those causes so that they can be observed and studied, then you have a shot at being science.
You will be a step ahead of all the actual biologists and biochemists professing ID, who have not been able to specify anything about the ID hypothesis that could lead to research.
Merely a generally held assumption that the universe is intelligently designed. You apparently believe it is inherently a bad idea to undertake science with this assumption in mind. So bad, in fact, that it ought to be prohibited from mention in public science classrooms. I'd like to know why. You say it is because it reduces curiousity. I don't see the connection. Finding an object that is known to be intelligently designed does not stifle curiosity just because the fact of intelligent design is known. In fact, it may cause even greater curiosity.