Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
Most scientists have a hard time accepting ID because it is religion masquerading as pseudo-science hoping to be mistaken for junk science.
Its history is clear; the modern iteration of ID came about after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court removed creation "science" from the classrooms. On old and dormant idea was dusted off and repackaged as "science" in the hope of fooling some school boards.
Remember "cdesign proponentsists” from the Dover trial? Here is the smoking gun (courtesy of Panda's Thumb):
Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
The authors of this book did a cut-and-paste to change "creationists" to "design proponents" -- but one cut-and-paste wasn't done correctly. We have a missing link between the two terms -- "cdesign proponentsists" which shows the evolution of creation science into intelligent design.
Now, can you think of any reason scientists would reject religious belief dishonestly masquerading as science?
I am a creationist. I do not see creationism as science. Of course I do not see evolution as science. I DO see the work done to attempt to find evidence of the history of bioligical life forms to be science however.
Science is not our God nor is it an intellectual panacea. It is one field of human study, as is art and phylosophy. It does not have all the answers to all the questions, because some belong in other field.
After all, science is about how, while religion is about WHY. Even if we DO discover everything there is to know about science, we still will not know WHY anything exists.
And there are no verifyable or proveable hypotheses about the origin of life. It is all just speculation at this point.
All of it.
[[Most scientists have a hard time accepting ID because it is religion masquerading as pseudo-science hoping to be mistaken for junk science]]
Since you’re a little confused on the issue (for hte umpteenth time) let’s go over definitions once again (once again for the umpteenth time)
“” Intelligent design” is a theory of the origins of life that suggests that intelligent causes best explain the origin of living systems and their features. The theory is based on the empirically-testable assumption that systems which exhibit high-information content are more likely the result of an intelligent design rather than undirected natural causes. Simply put in lay terms, living things are too complex to have happened by chance and there was likely some intelligent cause involved in their origins...
” Religion” on the other hand has been variously defined. The U.S. Supreme Court said in the late 1800’s that “the term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342 (1890)...
It should be apparent that “intelligent design” does not meet any of these definitions of “religion.” Intelligent design says nothing about whether a person has or should have a relationship with a creator (if there is one), and says nothing about whether there are or should be any obligations or duties owed to a creator (if there is one). Nor does intelligent design require belief in, reverence for, or worship of a supernatural power. Intelligent design does not suggest that the intelligent is a supernatural intelligent cause. Intelligent design simply says nothing of whether the intelligent cause is a supernatural or non-supernatural intelligent cause. Furthermore, intelligent design does not suggest that all else in life is subordinate to it as a theory of origins or is ultimately dependent on it...
Intelligent design has no liturgy or form of public worship, no clergy or people ordained for religious service, no observance of religious holidays, no sacred text, and no churches or other religious institutions. Intelligent design, unlike religion, takes no position on the existence of God or gods, does not require belief in God or gods, takes no position on any theory of morality or code of ethics, presents no opinion as to an afterlife, and holds no opinion on the ultimate meaning of life or the universe” http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/E%20Richardson%20is%20ID%20religion.htm
Tell us again how ID is nothign but a religion-