[ValenB4]

I do believe that there is more to the universe than the material. And I do believe that God set things in motion and there is design - according to his divine plan. But from our subjective point of view due to our being finite, imperfect, short lived beings, evolution is the means of his creation. As finite beings with imperfect knowledge, we cannot perceive anything beyond the physical universe (our scope of measuring the physical universe can change however). Therefore, while we occupy this life, we cannot perceive anything beyond evolution.

Trying to graft a non-scientific idea like ID onto science is a self-contradicting task. There is no way to gather objective evidence for what constitutes design. While you could say everything constitutes design, that's not scientific and doesn't get us anywhere in terms of learning anything new.

[Pietro]

thanks for your excellent response.

"Trying to graft a non-scientific idea like ID onto science is a self-contradicting task."

This is where I must question your logic. I think there is ample evidence that life, at all levels, demonstrates a self organizing power that is beyond the ability of current science to explain. Why is that?

I think it's because science has limited its vision soley to the material properties of life. If there is a self organizing force in this world then it should be perceivable. It need not necessarily be beyond our abilities to understand, although it very well may be.

In either case we will never find it if we don't look for it. And we can't look for it if we're not even allowed to discuss it.

And that, my friend, is the crux of this whole debate. It is nothing short of an academic establishment that has determined what can and cannot be discussed by labeling everything outside of their narrow perview as religion, and therefore, not serious.

Furthermore, by successfully labeling ID as cloaked religion they can leverage the usual anti-religious zealots to defeat it in the courts.