"It's the philosophy, not the science, that is friendly or not to theism.
If God is omnipotent, any scientific observation is compatible with
theism.
If ID refers to "intelligent design theory" as opposed to the general
principle that we ought to recognize God's hand in creation [though often
don't], then Johnson seems to be maintaining a God of the gaps assumption
here."
Of course your first sentence is correct (IMHO). But it is what people DO
with the science that consequently drives their philosophies.
Your 2nd sentence is also correct, but not very informative, IMHO.
Your last sentence uses the word "seems." It seems that way to you; it
does not seem that way to others. Ultimately, it is of importance
primarily to my friend Phil Johnson. I think he would deny it, but I
cannot speak for him.
Burgy