Stupid scientists (which is the bulk of them, I'm afraid) regularly conflate science and naturalism as if they were synonymous. Science is a process (and a body of knowledge and a career, but these are beside the point), that's all. This process may be used within the context of many worldviews. Naturalism, on the other hand, is a worldview and a religion. Naturalism assumes a priori that the physical world (dark matter and dark energy notwithstanding) is all that there was, is, or will be. There is no scientific process behind this presumption; it is as much or more of a leap of faith as is a belief in the supernatural.

Intelligent Design (ID) simply makes the opposite assumption, that there are supernatural phenomena, and that something or Someone supernatural is responsible for designing the universe. Given this assumption, the scientific method can be used just as validly and just as effectively as it can be in the religion of naturalism. I dare say more so, because naturalists fail to recognize their own assumption/worldview/religion for what it is.

As an aside, note that Creationism is the Biblical subset of ID, a specific worldview from the set of worldviews represented by ID. It, too, starts with an assumption, that the Word of God is true. Within Creationism, the scientific method can again be used and tends to be used far more so than in naturalism. I should note, too, that ID is not Christian or even Biblical. All the opposition to it in the government prisons--er, schools--is without foundation, but merely a passionate defense of a logically and observably indefensible religion known as naturalism.

Einstein once said there is no such thing as empty space, that is, space without a gravitational field. Rewording, I assert there is no such thing as objectivity, that is, perception without an interpretive worldview. Failure to recognize (or admit) this truth is at the heart of the so-called* scientists' hatred toward Creationism and ID and their fervor for defending their cherished but misplaced faith in naturalism.

*I qualify "scientists" with "so-called" because it's difficult to bestow the title upon them when they fail to acknowledge how their religious views affect their process, were they to even execute the process correctly which they tend to fail to do far too often.