You hounded another Freeper over words that have little or nothing to do with the argument at hand, as if those words, however inane they were, should discredit any further arguments said Freeper might engage. That is using the argument of guilt by association.
All heat, no light.
All hat, no cattle.
Meanwhile, I would like to know how science can be "agnostic" and still rule out either theistic or atheistic interpretations of the evidence. Also, how does the intelligent design explanation necessarily lead to a supernatural, or theistic conclusion?
The fact is, Western science has for the most part begun with the primary postulate that God-did-it, and from there inductively sought to make sense of things. That is why science is always uncovering patterns, organized matter, regular behavior and such. Only when we get to the quantum level does nature take on the appearance of gibberish, which begs the question as to how so much potential disorder can manifest itself through orderly processes.
To infer therefrom that an intelligent designer may be involved is hardly unreasonable or unscientific.