[Dimensio]

Descriptions of organized matter performing specific functions are descriptions of direct observations. To infer intelligent design from these observations is no more, and no less, "scientific" than to infer some other cause or agent, including chance.

Science makes no such inferences. Science merely observes the patterns and describes them. It makes no statements regarding the fundamental reason that the patterns exist as they do. It claims "chance" as a cause no more than it claims "intelligent designer".

[Fester Chugabrew]

[Science] makes no statements regarding the fundamental reason that the patterns exist as they do.

Hahahaha! Science cannot happen without consideration for fundamental reasons. In this case the reason submitted by your version of science is "nature." So, you and the fellows who coincide with your opinion essentially throw up your hands in defeat as if it is wholly beyond human reason and comprehension to attribute organized matter performing specific functions to anything specific in itself. Just "nature did it."

I'm okay with that. Really. At least to a degree. It is when folks begin to think such a point of view is the only one acceptable by law that I get upset. (Yes, my knickers get twisted over the issue.) The reason is we live in a free republic; a place where all ideas that touch upon science should be encouraged and debated everywhere, even in public schools; even if they happen to impinge upon what we tend to call "religion."

You may not believe it, but I am the last person to advocate sectarian religious teaching in public schools. In fact, I am the last person to advocate public schools in general because they tend to advocate the sectarian establishment of atheistic principles.