To get from physics to concerto’s under MN requires (or maybe not?) emergence - the idea that a higher level of complexity can emerge with rules of its own that do not violate physics, but may not be fully reducible to physics either. I would be interested in your thoughts here.
In practice, what is the heuristic value in ID? Were an object actually designed and therefore the naturalistic presumption wrong, science would keep on digging even if futile and the riddle remained open. The opposite is true of ID. Once deemed designed, you are done; there is no further need of investigation. Which presumption is more likely to generally advance science? As a practical matter, even the theistic scientists of yore such as Galileo, Newton, and Bacon presumed that the natural order would yield natural explanation, and not everything was carried on angel wings.