BTW, I leave open the possibility for (common descent). But I also don't think it is small-minded to conclude that something else has put this all in motion. Paint me with a "creationist" brush if you want, but I find it just as dogmatic to shut down that notion without admitting it takes just as much faith to do so as those who don't.
You may conclude whatever you like. The problem comes when somebody tries to pass off their personal "conclusions" under the color of science. They aren't.
Nobody here says ID should never be mentioned, or never taught. We just say that it shouldn't be taught as science, since there's no objective evidence for it and its own proponents admit that in order for it to be considered "science" the word needs to be stretched so far as to include astrology.
Evolution doesn't require "just as much faith". It has evidence to support it. So much evidence, for that matter, that the proponents of ID accept evolution as fact (they only want to add a supernatural element on the beginning of it).
Nothing "dogmatic" in insisting that words mean things.
You selectively read, or missed my meaning. I am saying I pretty much believe in evolution theory. I am just saying that science runs for the hills when questioned on how did it all start. The dances are incredible.
You are mincing words between belief/conclude/evidence, etc. Yes, words mean things. I have a B.A. in communication. The communicative theory of reality really piqued my interest during my studiess. The evidence you treat as a sacrement is interpreted and processed differently by every single human being that receives the communication transmitting said evidence. That makes it real in varying degrees and never understood in the same way. It is just a construct.
That we don't have more acknowledgement of our true limited understanding and potential to ever understand the forces around us baffles my mind. It makes science a type of religion to me. I don't think you can do anything other than theorize it's not.