That's true (sometimes), but don't mistake the illustration for the substance. I could have easily used a whole city in place of a single wall. The point is that if you find something that could not have come about by natural processes and which is complex enough to indicate design, then you don't have to have external proof of the designer above and beyond the object itself. And if we can determine whether weathered works of stone are the product of intellegent design or random chance, we can apply the same kinds of determinations to life itself. That's the essence of the ID argument.
Evolution is a perfectly good process that describes the existing evidence.
That's where we disagree. Even many of the evolutionists on this forum will admit plainly that evolution has no real answer for how life originated in the first place, even if they argue Darwinism after abiogenesis.
Trying to "prove God" with science through the "Intellegent Designer" argument is a dangerous idea. For some people, it will "disprove" God, wheras ignoring the science of Evolution is a far more prudent course for religious people.
It's only a dangerous idea if a) God doesn't exist, in which case we need to know, or b) God didn't leave any signs of His existence, which as a matter of personal experience, I know isn't true.
See, the problem is that you're treating religion as something that just sits on the peripherary of your existence, and which doesn't have any real impact on you. For those of us who take it seriously, belief in God and a knowledge of His character and wishes is central to our whole worldview.
Don't take that as evidence that "religious" people are more biased than non-theists. For the non-theist (by which I mean athiests, agnostics, deists, and others who don't think that God exists or if He does, that He doesn't interact intimately with human beings), keeping God out of the central picture is every bit as important as keeping Him in is to the theist. If science were to prove that God existed and that He took an interest in life on earth, you would be forced to deal with Him.
Therefore, I could respond to your warning by simply turning it back on you: Trying to "disprove" God with science through the "Darwinist" argument is a dangerous idea. For some people, it will "prove" God, so ignoring the science of biological origins is a far more prudent course for non-religious people. Your son or daughter is far less likely to reject your paradigm if you don't hand them the stumbling block of insisting that Darwinist materialism must be the basis for understanding natural science.
As I've said before and will say again, this is not an argument of science vs. religion, as much as you'd like to phrase it that way. It's an argument of scientific theory vs. scientific theory, of evolution theory vs. design theory, and of philosophy vs. philosophy, of non-theism vs. theism.
Even if we grant for a moment that one cannot prove God's existence (which I do believe we can), neither can one disprove it by your standards, so there is nothing unscientific about considering the possibility that since materialism cannot explain by itself the origins of life, and since life is so complex and finely-tuned, as are the cosmic conditions that make life possible, that there was an intellegent being who designed it.
Or to put it this way: The simplest cell is far more complex and contains far more information than your posts, so what proof do I have that you exist, and that your posts aren't just the product of a virus that resulted "naturally" from random gliches in FR's servers?
Nice job of turning all my points around backwards. But it doesn't make much sense that way.
Evolution isn't the effort to "disprove" God. It doesn't have anything to do with God (which is why it's stupid for religious people to even consider the issue), except that it does grate on some religious people who've been taught that God created the world in a specific way written in a few hundred words in Genesis. I've made the point many times that these few hundred words couldn't possibly be the whole story. There's plenty of room for God to use Evolution as his tool and believe Genesis as well.
Why is it a good idea for non-religious people to ignore science? Are you saying that science affirmatively proves God? I haven't read anything like that in the literature.
Your gobbledy gook about "Darwinist Materialism" is lost on me. I haven't read much in the scientific media about it. I really don't understand what you're talking about so why would that be some kind of stumbling block to my daughters understanding science?