With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.
As NWR has pointed out, the scientific method has nothing to do with creationism nor ID.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism.
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state.
Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.
Of Pandas and People is the source of the term "cdesign proponentistsism".
Perhaps you'd like to explain how, a term cooked up after creos lost a court battle, a term first used in a creo textbook, somehow has scientific credibility.