Is there something inherently religious about designers? I know a good many of them, and they don't appear to be supernatural in any way. Science does not have a means of discerning the difference between natural and supernatural in the first place, so your second assertion is absurd.
Two, the statements of the founders of your movement . . .
You flatter me in suggesting the movement is mine. As I read the documents to which you refer I see no reference either to a Christian God or to any efforts at evangelizing the world through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Your zeal in painting intelligent design as an inherently Christian concept is misguided. Yes, the idea of intelligent design is in accord with Christian teaching, but it is certainly not coterminous with it.
Why do you limit the powers of your god so?
Others have said the same thing and I cannot help but wonder: Isn't it rather bass-ackwards to suggest it is more difficult to create a functioning universe over billions of years as opposed to six literal days?
Unlike you, I have no stake in this other than the advancement of science.
It would be better if your temerity extended to confessing your god openly rather than hiding behind semantics and federal law.
What, you think Joe Schmoe down the street designed all life as we know it?
Science does not have a means of discerning the difference between natural and supernatural in the first place
Supernatural is outside the realm of the natural sciences, otherwise it would (if you just look at the word) be natural.
As I read the documents to which you refer I see no reference either to a Christian God or to any efforts at evangelizing the world through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I linked to the Wedge Document earlier. Notice in it that actual science is a small part. They run apologetics seminars for the believers to try to create a grass-roots movement. They've succeeded with that, and with it they have begun their end-run around science, using elected officials to enforce what they've failed to do scientifically.
Expanding on what I said before, the chief architect of that document, and the founder of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, said in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,
Darwinian theory isn't true. ... where might you get the truth? ... I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."Yeah, ID has nothing to do with religion.
Your zeal in painting intelligent design as an inherently Christian concept is misguided.
From the document, the audience is "our natural constituency, namely, Christians." Sure, other religions have various beliefs and philosophies that may include their deity guiding life to the forms it is in now, but they haven't labeled it ID and tried to push it as science.
Isn't it rather bass-ackwards to suggest it is more difficult to create a functioning universe over billions of years as opposed to six literal days?
So you're not an IDer, but a young-earth creationist?
It would be better if your temerity extended to confessing your god openly rather than hiding behind semantics and federal law.
In case you didn't notice, I said I have no stake in the ToE, that I would actually welcome its demise at the hands of a better scientific theory. I don't care about the ToE, but I do care about the advancement of science in general, and by definition the demise of the ToE (or Relativity or any other scientific theory) is an advancement of science.
The miasma theory of disease explained everything people saw, and led to useful measures to prevent disease, but it was wrong. It would have been interesting to be there when the germ theory of disease (yes, it's still a "theory") was accepted.