No. There are only five Joe Schmoes listed openly and nationally, none of whom reside in my state, let alone down the street.
Supernatural is outside the realm of the natural sciences, otherwise it would (if you just look at the word) be natural.
Now that is what I call a tautology of the crassest sort: scientifically and semantically meaningless. I would like you to demonstrate precisely what aspect of intelligent design is supernatural, and then tell me why it must be considered as such.
I linked to the Wedge Document earlier.
Your link didn't work so I sought it out. My assertion stands. The Wedge Document is not sectarian and does not espouse evangelism in the strict sense. Even if it did, there is no Constitutional mandate to prohibit teaching or discussing intelligent design in a public school science class. As I said, ID is in accord with many religions, including the Christian Faith. But that does not make the concept of intelligent design inherently religious or unscientific. Meanwhile, if anything, the Wedge Document is a welcome effort at breaking the philosophical logjams of Darwinism and materialistic naturalism foisted upon education in the name of science.
Your designer, God.
The Wedge Document is not sectarian and does not espouse evangelism in the strict sense.
So you redefine evangelism to get out of it? How about Johnson's comments? Face it, ID was meant as an evangelical tool, a religious-based movement to counter the perceived growing influence of materialism (and that IS in that document).
Even if it did, there is no Constitutional mandate to prohibit teaching or discussing intelligent design in a public school science class.
The possibilities, depending on how you'd like to define:
1. ID is evangelism. Evangelism is not and should not be allowed in public schools, unless you'd like to see the Mad Mullah come to your school and preach the wonders of radical Islam to your kids.
2. ID is is religion, and IMHO religion has a place in public schools -- just not in the science class.
But that does not make the concept of intelligent design inherently religious or unscientific.
I don't see how you can read that document, and the statements of Phillip Johnson, and come to that conclusion.