I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer, then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.
Actually science starts with a hypothesis
How about..
Science starts with 'self' (interchangeably referred to as intelligence or consciousness) -- there's got to be "somebody home", so to speak. People have it. Supercomputers don't.
Then they receive information -- sensory inputs, whatever.
Then the data are interpreted. This includes forming a hypothesis about what (really) happened.
And curiosity. The "aim" thing kinda ruins it for me because it seems like a formulaic crutch that students are taught in schools. The curiosity thing provides motivation and will to gather more data and continue the process.
What I like about this is that anyone can basically be a mobile laboratory. Actual laboratories merely extend people's capabilities with cool sensory gadgets.
Supercomputers only exist so raw data can be crunched, algebraic formulas can be simplified, results can get published to people to interpret.
Frankly, Science doesn't give a flying damn about Solipsistic Existential Epistemology. It would rather count things.