But what you've described is (1) not science and (2) doesn't help describe the universe. Both of those facts mean that it's out of place in the science classroom.

As to point (1), science must obviously start with a premise, but the experiment might not prove that premise. It might as easily disprove it or say nothing about it at all. The notion that I can take the same steps as you and come up with a different result makes what you're describing not science. Science is determined by facts, not philosophical interpolation.

As to point (2), if you define God as being omnipotent and able to change the course of the universe at will, not only does it not help define how the universe works in a predictable manner, as His will is unpredictable (or, in other words, He works in mysterious ways), it throws the entirety of science out the window. If our experiments are reproducible because He just hasn't had the notion to change the rules yet, then science is worthless. In fact, let's just remove it from the classroom and replace it with a religion class. That'll work better.

To sum up, if it is true, it's irrelevant. It does not help us understand our world in an empirical manner, which is what science does. If you want an explanation for why, which is all that ID gives you, go to church.