Hilarious. Not content with attempting to shove ID into science, now you're asserting it's an assumption of science. You make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?
But a certain judge in Dover, PA thinks it is his prerogative to prohibit mention of the idea that intelligent design might better explain the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.
"A certain judge in Dover, PA," heard all the evidence and issued a ruling. His ruling even referred to the evidence presented extensive testimony. You're not even capable of holding a thought from one post to the next. Why should I listen to you?
You do not have a scientific answer to intelligent design. All you have are emotional rants.
Fester, do you work in a movie theater? You're great at projection. Many posters have addressed scientific issues on the Theory of Evolution, and they've addressed the reasons ID doesn't measure up. They've told you the way science works, and the tests a theory must pass before it's considered science. You've ignored them all.
The words are my own, yes. I create them as I go along. That, too, is part of intelligent design: creativity. But the meaning? That science can and does operate under the assumption of intelligent design? No. That is not something I made up. It is something other people like Isaac Newton, Galileo, and others have assumed as they undertook science.
Show me a single theory that came about without intelligent design and I'll show you a single living cell built all by myself without the aid of either intelligence or design.