Is Crick a fundamentalist? According to Panspermia, a "higher" power is not necessarily the case, is it? I say this honestly questioning. I may hold a faith position, as many darwinists do, but fair treatment of ID theory is denied by the harbingers of the scientific process...I think because many of them fear or detest those who find hope in it.
Second, if you are saying that positing a deity automatically causes the hypothesis to fall outside the realm of science is false, then you could not be more wrong. A 'magical' being who just makes things happen can never be a conclusion in science. We tried that for 1500 years, it was called the dark ages. In which case Radio is practically right and you are technically right.
I don't see it that way. I do not think that the invocation of "magical" enhances your position other than rhetorically, but I do appreciate (how sad I have to say this) being addressed thoughtfully. I do not think, either, that anyone expects scientific acknowledgement of "A" deity. To acknowledge the possibility is sufficient. There is no proof of alien life either, yet science is better-prepared to accept its existence without said proof because of probability. ...something ID is rather interested in. Sorry, but the "dark ages" comment is a stretch.
Well, if everyone can be right, then kumbaya...baby.
"Is Crick a fundamentalist? "
I'm not familiar with this 'Crick.'
"According to Panspermia, a "higher" power is not necessarily the case, is it? "
You made me look up a new word. I wouldn't call that intelligent design... Where is the intelligence? Life evolved elsewhere, then was transferred to earth... no ID required...
"There is no proof of alien life either,"
But it is very likely, and very much within the realm of sciecne.
"yet science is better-prepared to accept its existence without said proof because of probability."
Why not? At least there is a possibility? The universe is incomprehensibly huge. Chances are there is other life out there right now dreaming about us.
"Sorry, but the "dark ages" comment is a stretch."
What signalled the end of the dark ages? The enlightenment. What was the most important element of the enlightenment? Secularism, when we told religion to shut up and sit down. After that, science took off. During the dark ages when religion was the absolute authority, we barely progress at all for 1500 years. Just look at the islamic world. When the christian world had our enlightenment, the islamic world was at least as advanced as us. Since the enlightenment, we've rocketed ahead of them tenfold. Why? Secularism of course, no religion to hold back progress.
Without any positive evidence, science is not in the business of recognizing a diety, or recognizing the possibility of the existance of one. It is inappropriate for science to even contemplate such an idea, for such an idea is not within the realm of science.
Philosophy and religion are affected by evolution and have to consider matters pertaining to evolution - what it means, how it changes our worldview, how it changes our interpretation of holy texts, and the ethics of a Darwinian social code (which proponents of evolution don't advocate). ID belongs in a philosophy class. It is a worldview, a philosophy.
The relationship of science to other fields is a one way street. Science affects other fields, but other fields do not affect science. Science is neutral on all fields outside of its realm. It does not concern itself with worldviews, philosophy, religions, and moral arguments. And any effort to make science address those issues can only be done by the application of force - namely, from the state, which has politicized science on behalf of the ignorant - as in Cobb County and York.
In regard to the point about alien life, not only is there no proof, there is no evidence. As of now, as far as we know, we are alone in the universe. Everything is just speculation about perceived probabilities.
You seem more open to the possibility of panspermia, which is science fiction and supported by no evidence, than evolution, which has plenty of evidence. Panspermia is certainly a more destructive idea to religion than evolution. Religion can accomodate and make peace with evolution. How can religion make peace with the idea that we are the creation of an advanced galactic civilization?