You and a good many others say so often and with a great deal of certitude, but I have no reason to believe this is truly the case. On what basis do you make this sweeping claim? Is this something you've taught yourself? Is it "intuitive?" For that matter is it a "falsifiable" claim?
You want the hands of science tied by a philosphy. Fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit.
I am sure reason has very little to do with what you believe or do not believe.
"On what basis do you make this sweeping claim?"
Because there is no evidence conceivable that could not be used to support the idea of a designer. What possible evidence would you accept as being against the idea of a designer? Is there even a hypothetical fact that could go against the idea of a designer? I know of none.
"Is this something you've taught yourself? Is it "intuitive?"
It's a logical necessity.
"You want the hands of science tied by a philosophy."
More than that, I want the hands of science to be constrained by reality; by EVIDENCE.
"Fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit."
I don't. Most of the world is perfectly content to follow whatever mystical mush that is thrown before them.