Well, O "champion of academic freedom," please enumerate all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science. We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.
Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.
You finally noticed that? I'm impressed. Let's work with just two:
1. A theory must suggest new lines of research.
2. A theory must be capable of falsification.
This has been posted many times recently. If you don't know know what the terminology means, look it up. You don't get to assign your own meanings to the words.
We'll work with that and see how ID fits. I'm not sure you can accomplish as much since you've been reduced to emotional blather.
Sure, Fester.
Meanwhile you've by no means scientifically refuted the reasonable, tentative suggestion that organized matter performing specific functions may best be explained as a product of intelligent design. You've also failed to tell me how the ideas of intelligence and design are necessarily religious.
Define your terms. All of them.