Yup. I have. You can read it here: The Rules of the Game. Clearly others know how it works, and many here have been learning. I’ve explained it from a philosophical, historical, theological, political, and Christological point of view.
Newton’s rules are an alternative to MN, that ID often advocates. If you read that thread, you’ll see that it can lead to a disturbing type of deism. This is one reason I prefer MN to ID.
They are the rules.
By 2 and 3, I suppose you mean these?
I understand you might dispute these rules, but these are the rules as I find them. They have not been overruled in the discourse of science. Scientists can say things beyond science. And scientists sometimes break the rules. That does not make it right. It is easy to call them back onto the fair ground.