jar writes:
ID can be included in science as soon as you present sufficient evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer and place that Designer on the lab table so that we can test both its existence and its intelligence.
I think you are overstating the requirements for ID to be considered science when you require that the Designer be placed on the lab bench. Even indirect, circumstantional, material evidence for a designer ought to be sufficient as long as it leads logically, and nearly inevitably to the existence of the designer. What is important is that ID lead to predictions that can be verified by experiment.
Scientist know that stars are formed when the heat generated by gravitational collapse starts is sufficient to start hydrogen fusion. But nobody has ever collapsed a cloud of hydrogen in a lab.
My opinion is that ID is non scientific primarily because no methodology is given for identifying the designer's work other than the marvel or incredulity of the ID proponent. IDists simply adapt Justice Stewart's, "I know it when I see it" approach to identifying obsenity to identifying design work.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with believing things for non-scientific reasons. Only a few people have any real interest whatsoever in ID being considered science. Even most YECs accept that creation was a supernatural event.