Well, a 'creator' in the way you are using that term is 'supernatural'.
Only by your perspective. These perspective have nothing to do with science.
There is no way to test for such a 'creator'. It does not fit into the methology for science.
Correct. The question of a creator or lack ther of, is non scientific. Science must remain impartial. However we are human and very poor at that impartial thing. lol
As for randomness.. we are not in a deterministic universe. Quantum mechanics have proven this. We are in a universe that it is probablity oriented, not deterministic.
A deterministic or non deterministic view has nothing to do with science. Science gives no absolutes. Anyone who arives at such a conclusion is simply stating how they feel. Since when is probability not deterministic? Being on the ignorant side of the equation may delude some to false conclusions.
Anywho. Perhaps there would not be such a push to bring ID into existance in education if many following evo did not promote the assumption that selection is random and from there determine lack of design. Natural selection does not say random. One cannot follow evo and promote design or non design and remain impartial as science must. In this aspect of evo there has been a point of view promoted that has no basis in fact.
From my perspective there is no difference between claiming randomness
and claiming design. However if one is to teach design it must be without naming a designer. In this way it must remain impartial. Simply the generic search for evidence of design.
It should also completely avoid the search for intent. That would make it religion.
Design or non design is a glass half empty/full kind of thing. In truth all ideas of that nature are non scientific animals/points of view and should never be confused with science. When we do, science ceases to be the wonderful tool it is and becomes a very dangerous and altogether different animal. It is no longer impartial and becomes someones tool for agenda.