[Dimensio]

That's a good way to be, and yet I sense you are not comfortable in accepting the mention of intelligent design in a scientific context, even though it might fit the paradigm better than some other general pretext.

I am not comfortable in accepting Intelligent Design in a scientific context because thus far it has not demonstrated itself to be scientific. Also, you have not demonstrated that the philosophy that you espouse -- which is not Intelligent Design -- is scientific.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I am not comfortable in accepting Intelligent Design in a scientific context because thus far it has not demonstrated itself to be scientific.

There you go assuming a conclusion again. There is a patent inequity in waving off intelligent design as "not scientific" when in fact it lays a foundation for quantifying and describing an intelligible universe, yet at the same time suggesting it is more scientific to substitute "nature" for God. Of course, I have no reason to expect equitable considerations from those who reject the authority and accuracy of the biblical texts, so you are, by nature, on your own mark.