There's a big difference between following clues when you're on to something (like discovering gunpowder), and say, asking why God made the "space-time fabric". For practical matters, it's best to separate science and theology that way- which is also why ID is so "messy", because it attempts to blend the two.
Why bother? Communion, by all measures, is plain old bread. Faith says that it's Christ's body. The two descriptions conflict, and unless you have some amazing proof that they really don't (by some deeply physical reasoning), then don't bother asking "why" about it. Not unless you're willing to lose faith, that is.
"For practical matters, it's best to separate science and theology that way- which is also why ID is so "messy", because it attempts to blend the two."
I'll allow that it's difficult, but wouldn't making a cosmic, unifying sense of "scientific" and "theological" schools of thought just lead us closer to what "Truth" is?
I find it to be the highest comedy that people can reject the concept of an evolving world of life, yet imply that it was intelligent design that put all things here. The very moment I "buy into" the I.D. thesis, I must immediately recognize that the Intelligent Designer(s) undoubtedly wrote 'function_to_evolve()' into their designs.
What designer among us, doesn't create 'things', be they machines, computer programs, organizational systems, philosophical treatises, or roads & structures that are 'flexible'? Especially programmer-types. Most of us work awefully hard to write code that doesn't just serve one specific use, but can be recycled with minor-or-no modification into a completely different use.
My mechanical-engineering friends are always ensuring that their creations have the ability to be 'upgraded', or 'extended' or 'scaled' to higher dimensions, to far larger purpose than imagined. It is the sign of a good design(er) when the thing not only serves its intended purpose, but has a so richly outfitted 'depth' that it can serve a number of other purposes.
I feel cheated to hear the I.Design group forever rejecting that evolution could have produced much if not all of the complexity observable today, and somehow impuning such self-propelled transformation as being not something that the Great Designer(s) would have put into their creation(s). Cheated.
The Elephant-in-the-living-room is that people who vehemently argue that ID is on equal basis with EoS do so positioning ID as an alternative to EoS. Bull. If there is ID at all, then EoS is built into it, for whatever truly incredible and terrible level of intellect that should have designed all of the underlying systems, will most certainly have endowed its creations with the ability to evolve, to adapt to the changing environment, to survive its catastrophes and to change their 'function' in the system to accomodate the changing needs of the thing itself. No intelligent designer with the capability to 'write the code' for all of this stuff would possibly have left out 'evolution' as either unnecessary, impractical, or "oops... forgot that".
GoatGuy