[Fester Chugabrew]

Both inductive and deductive reasoning are useful to science. The presence of organized matter performing specific functions is best understood as the product of intelligent design. What other construct can be offered, empirically or otherwise, to provide a better understanding? It is no shame for science to begin with the assumption the universe is both intelligently designed and sustained by an intelligent designer. It's carried on that way for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Nor is it contrary to the principles undergirding the governance of the United States to express this understanding in any public context, whether it be science, general education, or sports.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The presence of organized matter performing specific functions is best understood as the product of intelligent design."

What a crock.

What you are saying is that the best explanation for the existence of everything is a mystical, super powerful entity, that we've never seen, and of whom we have no proof of its existence.

Why don't you drop the parsing and call your belief what it truly is.

Do you, or do you not believe that Creation is the product of the Biblical God?

Your refusal to accept the available data on evolution, coupled with your inability to understand how that data is pertinent to the question of organized matter performing specific functions neither disproves the data, nor does it amount to proof of the theory of Intelligent Design.