[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.

[Dimensio]

There you go assuming a conclusion again.

What conclusion am I assuming?

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.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deity constructs worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why, and what has a "God" to do with Intelligent Design?

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.

< For what reason should I accept the authority and accuracy of Biblical texts?