Hello gnc and welcome. I can’t speak for Dr. Tyson, but I believe he was making a rhetorical point. That is, the ID theorist puts “god” into the parts of the world he doesn’t understand. This has been a certain pattern throughout history of theistic believers: when they don’t understand the motions of the planets, they’ll say that it’s due to divine intervention. When they don’t understand evolution, they’ll say that god created all living creatures. When they didn’t understand disease, they said it was due to god’s actions.
If we are in general willing to take this cop-out move and say that god is responsible whenever we don’t understand something, we’ll be in very bad shape regarding a cure for cancer or alzheimer’s ... such a person (to be consistent) ought to say that since we don’t understand the mechanisms of cancer and alzheimer’s, those are due to the actions of god and there’s nothing we can do about them.
Of course, we know they’d be wrong.
Or said another way, if the ID theorist is willing to say that cancer and alzheimer’s are natural, physical diseases that we can cure eventually even though we don’t know precisely how to do so right now, why can’t they equally say that evolution is the best explanation for life even though we don’t have absolutely every animal fossilized?