[Dimensio]

Science does not have the luxury of making all possible observations.

I never claimed that science had such a luxury. This does not invalidate my previous statement.

Be that as it may, your statement above above is why from my point of view your faith appears so preposterous.

To what "faith" do you refer?

Rather than accept the ubiquitous presence of matter that performs specific functions as potential evidence of intelligent design you prefer to explain it away, ignore it, or scream out that such implications have nothing at all to do with science.

This is false. You apparently have failed to understand the objections to your claims. Your claim of "intelligent design" is not science because you have failed to explain why what you present as evidence actually supports your claim of intelligent design. That is, you claim "organized matter performing specific functions" is evidence of intelligent design, but you steadfastly refuse to explain why "organized matter performing specific functions" is best explained by intelligent design.

Not only so, but you enjoy seeing the force of law brought to bear on your faith as if it is the only reasonable one worth a hearing in any public academic scientific context.

This statement is also false. The fact is that your claims are not scientific. I need no laws to guarantee as much; the lack of scientific merit of your claims is true regardless of the law.

BINGO!

Saying "BINGO!" does not add any further credibility to your claim.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The fact is that your claims are not scientific.

No. The fact is that your standard for "scientific" is not consistent. It applies only to your inferences, which are more numerous and less well-supported by objective reality than mine.