Excellent points. Do you ever feel like you're swimming against the tide? I know I do.
Claiming that some "intellegence" created species at one time won't wash, because the fossil record refutes it.
Claiming that some "intellegence" created species over billions of years is irrational, because then that intellegence should still be here among us, and there is no evidence of this.
So what are you going to replace evolution with, once you've criticised it into oblivion?
What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?
No, I don't. You do. Your disgust with rationalism, materialism, whatever is unrelated to the preponderance of evidence for common descent, an old Earth, etc. Science has not been doing science wrong for the last 200 years. Get over it.
I'm sure the astrologers of the world celebrate that you're taking up their supernatural cause. I think I'm a Sagittarius. Wonder what my future holds today?
You do realize that once the "supernatural" is defined as "rational". Then anything goes. Any faith. Any crackpot whacko with Koolaid and a tent in the jungle is now "rational".
You do realize that Christians are a small minority on this planet, don't you? By making the argument that the supernatural is rational, you're giving more aid to other faiths, than to Christians, merely because of the demographics.
I've heard the screams from DU that Bush and conservatives are attempting to start a theocracy. I've paid them no mind until now. But maybe they're not so far off after all.