Hello dear marron! WRT the above: I strongly doubt a "real" scientist would have any problem with the fact that you or I or anybody else believes in a Creator God.
Of all humanity, scientists are thought (expected) to be the most "open minded." So if someone who claims to be a scientist shuts his mind against such views (and the people who hold them, which is the main case here it seems), then i would question that person's credentials as a scientist. I would suspect such a person was something else, promoting himself under the guise of science for non-scientific purposes.
ID is not at all interested (as far as I can tell) in proving the existence of God. ID more than Darwinists (I suspect) understands that this is not a proper scientific question at all.
Speaking for myself, a person who is NOT closely identified with ID (in my own mind, at least), I am interested in studying the DESIGN, recognizing that the "identity" of the designer is not the question under investigation. I am convinced there is design/form/purpose in universal nature. And I would like to understand it better. The best way to do that, it seems to me, is just to observe reality, and take it from there, wherever the trail leads....
You wrote: "Dawkins thinks that if he shows how it happened, he has disproven God, he thinks faith in God is dependent on "mystery".
Fascinating insight, marron. But if he wants to utterly 'demystify" the world, why, then, would he try to sell his "prescription for world-demystification" by resort to the rhetorical imagery of mystery?
This sort of thing makes my head hurt, makes me bleed through my ears. Truly, i do not understand such people at all. Hope that changes, though.
Thank you so much for your beautiful post, marron.
The unreasonable effectiveness of math - dualities and mirror symmetries - are like Las Vegas neon signs to me, saying as you have said: "there is design/form/purpose in universal nature."