LOL.
Your statement "stands" because you said so, not because you have proven so.
Look, science is NOT an argument against God. Science is merely the discovery of Gods universe. Because I KNOW God to be true, by my own personal experience, I am motivated to pursue science and advance my understanding of God's universe.
I've read the CS Lewis, and also the recent book by Dr. Armand Nicholl, "The Question of God" which "debates" CS Lewis against Sigmund Freud.
Fundamentally the error you repeat is that you assume all knowledge comes from scientific research, and that no knowledge came come from revelations by God. This itself is an unprovable philosophical position. The case that some knowledge comes from Divine revelation is strong, simply because it is supported by the the majority of people on the planet, who though they may come from diverse disconnected societies, all share similar experiences about divine revelations, as personal experience. Just because it cannot be measured by scientific apparatus does not mean it does not exist.
If you have not experienced love I cannot scientifically convince you it exists. But love does exist because respectable people have testified and we have seen the effects of love by the actions of people in love.
The same is true for the experience of those of us who have recieved divne revelation and those of us who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is as profound, or more so, as the experience of love. It is personal and it is derived from God. This I know because it was experienced only when I conceded myself to God and asked Jesus Christ to be my personal Lord and Saviour, in accordance with his teachings and will. My wife, a Jew, and a deist for 20+ years, and a manager of a large engineering operation experienced an epiphany when she asked Christ into her soul.
I know God is real as surely as I know any scientific proof is true. My personal senses and sensibility convince me of the truth.
Scientists experience such revelations also. They do not stop their science and say "God did it". On the contrary for most it propels them on at a more urgent pace.
As Einstein said "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man."
"...But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -- 1 Corinthians 2:10-14
You continue to shift the discussion. Straw Man, Begging the Question, Ergo Hoc (1/2).
This is NOT a discussion about whether science is against God. As I have said post after post after post, most scientists see the amazing beauty and wonder in their discoveries and see God's hand.
This is about whether ID (or its retarded cousin, Creationism) is a valid scientific theory or line of discussion. It isn't.
"Fundamentally the error you repeat is that you assume all knowledge comes from scientific research, and that no knowledge came come from revelations by God. This itself is an unprovable philosophical position."
That is a great philsophical discussion. It has no place in a science lab. The source of inspiration is unknown and unfathomable.
All scientific knowledge comes from the scienific method. It MUST.
"God said," soul-satisfying as it may be, is not a valid answer. In fact it is copping out.
Again, just because scientists believe in God, that doesn't prove His existence nor does it change the nature of Religion as a philosophical/mythological pursuit.
Nothing in your response undermines my contention: All religion boils down to: "because I think so."