[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure there is."

Now you're disagreeing with yourself, as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

"And it is a weighted, subjective choice."

It is not science then. Subjective evidence has no weight.

"My choice, and the choice of millions of reasonable people, is to infer from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws that it is best explained by intelligent design. What is the other "option?""

The other choice is the one YOU said had the same weight, the idea that you can explain everything without a Designer(God). If "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative of objective reality, then the only way to choose is some subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is automatically OUTSIDE of science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is not science then. Subjective evidence has no weight

It's not the evidence that is subjective, but my interpretation of it. As long as science is conducted by human beings it will be subjective.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

I maintain that science is capable of being undertaken with more than one assumption, and that the observer is free to choose those assumptions. Science from a theistic or atheistic point of view is never entirely testable or falsifiable because science is by nature limited. It cannot test every case imaginable. To that extent, and that extent only "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative, or descriptive, of objective reality. That is quite alright, because science is not defined by proofs alone, nor will it ever be absolutely determinative or descriptive of objective reality.

The bottom line is that the tired old argument "intelligent design is not science" fails. It is not true. If evolutionism is to be held to the same standards you believe are required of science, then it too should be disqualified as science. Neither you nor anyone else is qualified to assert "scientifically" or "objectively" that God is beyond the scope of science. Neither you nor anyone else has objective "proof" that the history of mankind began with single-celled or simpler creatures and progressed to its current state.