[Fester Chugabrew]

So if it's just natural interaction between atoms, and there is no apparent design, then it is a matter that attains to the level of "scientific." And it would be an "unscientific" notion to posit that perhaps what appears to be "random" or "unguided" may actually be designed and executed according to established rules, laws, etc. I see.

[Liberal Classic]

Science is about naturalistic explanations of the physical world around us. It is a tool. Nothing more. It describes the physical world in concrete terms, and does so in such a way as to provide predictive power.

Many people working in science and engineering disciplines have faith. Their faith, even their disparate faiths in Judaism, Christianity, Hindusism, etc, does not prevent them from understanding what science is and how it works and working together on it.

However, attempting to shoehorn theology into biology and chemistry, as you are trying to do, does a disservice to both faith and science. I personally believe that the God-of-the-Gaps not only makes for bad science, but bad theology as well.

[b_sharp]

I don't know if your hopping around is because of intent or your version of logic but every post I've made about the insufficiency of ID as a science has revolved about its inability to test and falsify its hypotheses. Its value has nothing to do with whether it looks random, ordered or designed. What does give it problems is the number of naturally occurring 'organized' and 'ordered' phenomena that will cause false positives. The prevalence of false positives makes it unscientific as it stands. If they can fix this problem, develop a theory that is testable, falsifiable (yes, in most cases falsifiability *is* necessary) and makes predictions, then it may become a science.

Please if you cannot understand my points, simply ask me to expand upon them don't just jump off into wild tangents because you think I said something I didn't.