That is correct. Evolution has zero, zip, zilch, nada to say about gods.
So "nothing to do" does indeed equal "completely irrelevant". Thanks for noticing.
Evolution has a great deal (and almost exclusively) to say about flora and fauna other than humans, yet somehow it's the "origin of man" that raises the fur of religious fundamentalists.
Sorry, but that is a very profound anti-religious position whether the evolutionists are willing to admit it publicly or not.
Only if you're a religious paranoid.
The evolutionists claim that any notion of ID is "unscientific" and "outside the domain of science,"
It's not the notion of ID that's the problem, it's the research; There is none.
Nothing to observe, nothing to predict, nothing to test -- ergo: "not science".
... then later they claim that ID has been thoroughly refuted by science.
As far as I know, you're the first to make that claim.
Scientists need "something" to test to support or refute a hypothesis. ID doesn't have that "something".
When the premise and the conclusion are the same, what is the value of the conclusion?
Like Intelligent design?
"I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semetic stories which were Pagan and mythical."