I am against the idea that those who reject the accuracy and authority of the biblical texts are, by virtue of said rejection, the sole custodians of science and objective reality. I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts. I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.
None of your response is an answer to the question I asked you. I asked if you agree that scientists shouldn't decide on the veracity of Biblical texts before examining the physical evidence? It is a simple enough question.
I am against the idea that intelligent design must be outlawed in science classes because it happens to comport with the biblical texts.
But that isn't why it is outlawed in science class. It is outlawed in science class because even its proponents agree that it doesn't meet the entry requirements of being considered science. Moreover, Intelligent Design scientists (Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer) agree the following (Behe under oath):
Do those beliefs "comport with the biblical texts", or is it just wishful thinking on your part that you would like there to be a version of ID that does so? Or perhaps you are aware of another group of scientists who promote a scientific Intelligent Design hypothesis that *does* comport with Biblical texts. If so perhaps you could name them and share their hypothesis with us.
I am against the idea of monopolies in science and in public education.
There is a monopoly in science, that it should be done using observation, prediction, and potential falsification. You may want to investigate the world some other way, perhaps using supernatural claims, and perhaps you'll find the Truth, but you won't be doing science, which is, by definition, the study of the natural world.