They do fill the requirement, you just won't recognize it.
I don't buy that number (77% of republicans)
I posted the links to muliple polls here see posts 73, 75 and 90 in the following thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1670849/posts?page=93
You are in denial about Republicans rejecting evolution, just like you are in denial about ID and Creation being valid alternative explanations to evolution.
Ok. Let's do a little experiment.
Is ID or Creationism:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?
In what possible way could "here a Designer steps in" be anything less than religion? It is not falsifiable, testable, observable nor any of the other umpteen requirements for a scientific theory (heck even a scientific hypothesis).
You are in denial about Republicans rejecting evolution, just like you are in denial about ID and Creation being valid alternative explanations to evolution.
If you are right, I am very afraid of the damage our party is doing to the next generation of Americans. You can repeat "denial" all you want but that doesn't fix the problems of Creationism and ID vis a vis real science.
But I understand your philosophical thinking. It just needs to stay in philosophy.