How ironic. You'll accept the Biblical account without question; indeed when it is pointed out (and evidence presented that) the Biblical accounts cannot have happened as described, you are willing to toss out that data to cling to an unfounded belief.
Your cred, what little you had on these threads, has just gone out the window. Convsersing with you, and your Orwellian mentality, would simply be an exercise in frustration.
Yes, the biblical texts are the standard by which I judge the other information coming my way. It is not my prerogative to question the authority of the biblical texts not only because I consider them to be reliable and generally reasonable on the face of it, but also because they testify of themselves as having been written by the Creator. The same cannot be said of human documents such as science textbooks. They demand questions and evaluation in light of the standard to which my reason and senses are constrained.
So far there has been no physical evidence presented that would cause me to conclude, for example, that intelligent design is either uninvolved or unnecessary in a universe that demonstrates intelligible processes and allows the intelligent communication essential to science in the first place.
Apparently you have some other reason for assuming intelligent design has little or nothing to do with organized matter that performs specific functions. Maybe it's your gut feeling. Whatever it is, it does not warrant consideration beyond yourself. Why you choose not to admit your assumptions, why you consider them to be untouchable in terms of debate, and why you think your assumptions should by law enjoy a sole hearing in the public school classroom are questions you ought to be willing to address, but instead you choose to huff and puff about my credibility. So be it.