[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions."

We are not free to choose subjective evidence and still be scientific.

"The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails."

No, it's true. You have already said it isn't objectively testable.

"If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science."

No, because it's claims are objectively testable.

"Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science."

You already have. Listen to yourself Fester, you were right then. You said it wasn't objective evidence that tilts the scales towards ID/God. You said it was subjective reasons.

"Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state."

No, but we have objective evidence. As you know, science doesn't deal in proof.

[Fester Chugabrew]

We are not free to choose subjective evidence and still be scientific.

You switched the terms. I said it is the observer that is subjective by nature, not the evidence. Do you know the difference?

The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is objective evidence for intelligent design, because intelligent design by definition entails organizing matter along with the parameters by which it will be governed. Where is your objective evidence that man began as a simple creature and progressed from there? Can you present objective evidence that entails not the slightest amount of inference or subjective notions? No.