My postings clearly show me in the ID camp because I think they should be heard.
That is an excellent indication of how open minded the evolution proponents on this thread are. Let's be clear, not all proponents of evolution-- including myself-- are so dogmatic.
As I noted in the alchemy example, scientists can make bad assumptions and still practice science.
This kind of bogus intolerance is hurting science not helping it.
"The radical darwinian community" is not every proponent of evolution. There is a unique group of individuals who see evolution as an intellectual sledgehammer. I am trying to figure out the motives as to why.
"My postings clearly show me in the ID camp because I think they should be heard."
Then why did you make the statement about your *Faith in evolution is declining*, when you clearly don't accept evolution at all?
And they are heard.
As I noted in the alchemy example, scientists can make bad assumptions and still practice science.
Correct. But bad "science" (in the case of ID, pseudoscience), still deserves to be called what it is.
This kind of bogus intolerance is hurting science not helping it.
It's not a "bogus intolerance". It's an intolerance for bogusness. If ID was merely wrong, it wouldn't get the abuse it does. The reason it gets ragged on is because it's masquerading as something it's not, it pretends more than it delivers. We don't accept that in silence from Michael Moore, and we shouldn't put up with it from "ID" proponents either.
"The radical darwinian community" is not every proponent of evolution.
I'm not sure it's any of them. What exactly is a "radical darwinian"?
There is a unique group of individuals who see evolution as an intellectual sledgehammer.
Like who?
I am trying to figure out the motives as to why.
You should also try to figure out if you're misunderstanding the people you think are "sledgehammering" or "radical darwinians".