"Because they succumb to the arbitrary, unscientific, philosophical notion that the distinction between natural and supernatural is scientifically valid."
It's philosophically valid anyway. If something is clearly supernatural, then it by definition supersedes the natural and thus is beyond natural explanation. This methodological naturalism was so important in assuring objectivity and not alone scientists to use explanations such as "God did it" or "It all depends on the stars" et cetra.
"Again, unless science can show intelligent design to be beyond its purview it has no business discarding the evidential products of intelligent design (namely organized matter that performs specific functions) or the theory of intelligent design, as unscientific."
ID is beyond its purview; methodological naturalism. Organized matter performing specific functions (although in actual, organized matter does not perform functions determined a priori; this can be seen with biochemical pathways. Check out H. J. Muller, "Reversibility in Evolution Considered from the Standpoint of Genetics," Biological Reviews 14 (1939): 261–80.) does not dictate intelligent design.
ID's predictions have been falsifiable. Even if it were a scientific idea, it has been discredited.
"The inequity on the part of evolutionists is glaring. On the one hand they are permitted to construct renditions of history based upon reasonable conjecture and be called scientific, while proponents of ID, when they reasonably conjecture organized matter as a product of intelligent design, are (supposedly) pushed out of the arena. The fact is, there is more physical evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support an intelligent Congress, let alone a billion year history of unobserved, unrecorded processes."
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but I don't want to get sidetracked by that. It's a topic deserving unto it's own.
ID's tangible predictions, namely CSI and IC, have been discredited already. As I've said, even if it was in principle science, it has become discredited and inaccurate.
We're not talking about what is philosophically valid, but what is scientifically valid. How does science determine this distinction? Is it the understanding of the observer that renders a phenomenon "natural" instead of "supernatural?" Until we answer this question we have no business discarding intelligent design as unscientific as if it is "supernatural." As I've told you already, the observable universe is replete with examples of intelligent design; some by direct observation, others by inference.
We're not talking about what is philosophically valid, but what is scientifically valid. How does science determine this distinction? Is it the understanding of the observer that renders a phenomenon "natural" instead of "supernatural?" Until we answer this question we have no business discarding intelligent design as unscientific as if it is "supernatural." As I've told you already, the observable universe is replete with examples of intelligent design; some by direct observation, others by inference.
I know. But for some reason evolutionists cannot even accept reasonable conjecture at this point, though they prefer to have a boatload of their own conjectures not only accepted as a matter of fact but also established by law as the only point of view to be discussed in public schools. I tend to think that reason is personal and philosophical rather than scientific.