The concern with including supernatural processes is they are not well defined, so what is to exclude invoking magical pixies as an explanation? additionaloy, science likes to know some sort of mechanism or at least constraint that we can experimentally verify, a la physics
once you explain a process with an undefined process that cannot be empirically tested in any way, then that hampers scientific inquiry because we have no means to empirically confirm or falsify the explanation
e.g. if we explain disease with evil spirits, there is no impetus to discover microbiology and hygeine theory
otoh if we assume there is some empirically detectable cause of disease then that gives us some scinetific traction to experimentally narrow down to the root cause
it is like debugging broken software, if i just assume random chance or inscrutible compiler, os, or hw fault causes my problem when really it is my own error, then in most cases i fail to solve a bug due to my own fault
likewise with science, the weight is placed on processes we can empirically examine to avoid giving up on something that realky does have an empirical explanation
now. if we can have an empirically well defined and testable formulation of a supernatural cause, that can be empirically distinguished from alternate causes, then we can include it in science
so far what you have presented per creationism does not meet that requirement, bu I also think evolutionary theory doesn’t meet tgat requirment, so both are equally invalid scientific tgeories
ID and Darwinism are tge only scientific theories that meet tge requirements above, afaik