You went through a lot of good detail there, but lost it with your "they evolve by design" comment.
As soon as you bring in the outside "designer" you stop doing science. Its like the comment I read on one of these threads earlier of a scientific theory or mathematical proof or some such with "then a miracle happened" in the middle.
What is the evidence for an outside designer? Under what conditions does this designer operate. If you hypothesize such a designer, how will you test your hypothesis?
Where does the hypothetical designer fit into this method of doing science? Can you point out the relevant facts? Or is it, "We don't know all the details so a miracle happened?"Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
"As soon as you bring in the outside "designer" you stop doing science."
You should know the next question. What is science?
Why is intelligent design not science? Give me a nice concise definition.
How about I give you a nice simple definition. Science is the application of the scientific process with the intention of learning about the world in which we live.
What's wrong? Is the definition too theoretical? Does it define science in a way that doesn't provide nice comfortable answers?
If we start restricting science to things we understand, we become Ludditites. We stop seeking to qeustion what we know. Considering how little we really know about the world in which we live, it's kind of absurd to asume that we haven't made some incorrect assumptions in our scientific theories. After all they are theories, not proven facts.
"Its like the comment I read on one of these threads earlier of a scientific theory or mathematical proof or some such with "then a miracle happened" in the middle."
A proof with "then a miracle happened" in the middle isn't a proof. It's still a theory. It's not a very credible theory. It needs a bit of work in the area containing the miracle, but at least you know a good area to concentrate on when working to refine and improve on that theory.
"What is the evidence for an outside designer?"
Well, obviously there isn't proof of an outside designer. That's kind of part of the whole theory thing.
One way inwhich you evaluate theories is to simply ask questions that the theory might answer and look for other explainations.
Evolution might explain how life evolved, but where did this world come from? How did it all start? We've got that whole second law of therodynamics thing that says that systems tend toward entropy and that no system is 100% efficient.
So our univers must be increasing in entropy and must be expending energy in the process. Well where did all the energy come from to get this whole thing started?
Evolution isn't gonna answer that one for ya.
Whenever you ask why we teach evolution the answer is that it's the best theory we have that explains what we have observed.
Well, what's the best explaination you have for how all this got started. If it doesn't involve some form of intelligent design, explain why it's a better theory than some form of intelligent design. Make sure your reasoning doesn't include some self serving and limiting defintion of science. let's leave the semantics to Bill Clinton when he tries to define "is" in a way such that he can say he didn't perjure himself.
I'n not saying that ID is the only explaination to anything. I'm merely pointing out that it's a theory.
"Under what conditions does this designer operate. If you hypothesize such a designer, how will you test your hypothesis?"
There is no criteria for a theory that says it must be provable. Facts must be provable. Theories are possible answers to questions that usually bring up more questions than they answer.
I do not know how to test for a designer. I also don't know how to test that evolutionary mutations are truely random. By definition you can't prove that something is random. So much for really testing out that theory of evolution.
Oh wait, maybe that's one of the reasons why it's considered a THEORY?!?!
Science is not simply the study of nice conveient facts that you can go look up in a textbook. If it were it would be pretty boring. After all what we know about our universe is such a small amount compared to what we don't know. If we limit science to those nice comfortable facts, what are we doing when we try and learn about the things we don't currently understand? We obviously don't want to call that studying religion or we'll never get anywhere due to fighting lawsuits from the ACLU all the time instead of learning.
We could call it philosophy. I'm kind of fond of philosophy since what we like to consider science has it's roots in philosophy. I'm always amused that if you want to take a class on logic in a university you'll have to go to the philosophy department, because it isn't taught as science, yet you can't explain anything in science without understanding logic.
My theory is that science and philosophy are labels imposed by acedemics more concerend with empire building at universities than with learning. As evidence to support my theory I suggest you sit in on a budget meeting in which funds are being split up between those different departments.
Now religion on the other hand has something that distinguishes it from science or philosophy.
Religion takes an unprovable theory, recognizes that it is unprovable, and then compells you to believe in it anyway.
This is another reason I don't like how the ACLU and the teachers unions are pushing to teach the theory of evolution exclusively in our public schools.