[Dataman]

That is, BTW, the reason why I don't accept the separateness of ID and creationism. The former is a Trojan Horse for the latter. It is possible that a few people like the Trojan Horse for its own aesthetic qualities, and not because it's full of hostiles, but IMO they're unwitting souls being taken for a ride.

While I certainly understand why an ardent evolutionist sees a connection between creationism and ID, it makes no logical sense why they would rule out design a priori. The one and only reason for ruling out a Creator or ID's designer is that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution would be refuted. Therefore evolutionism must abandon objectivity and deny what we observe rather than explain it.

[Right Wing Professor]

The one and only reason for ruling out a Creator or ID's designer is that the naturalistic assumptions of evolution would be refuted.

'One and only'? Really? So if I say that the reason I discount ID as an alternative scientific theory is where and how it is being used - not to foster real research, or to develop a better understanding of the world, but to alter the way we teach science in schools - then that would be a second reason, and I've falsified your statement, no?