This doesn't make sense. What you've said (even if you didn't mean it) is that even if there is a Designer, science has to act as if there isn't -- which is not even remotely scientific.
There's some legitimacy to the idea that science cannot demonstrate the existence of a designer -- but even then, I think that's not necessarily a scientifically valid statement.
The real issue here is one of assumptions: "science" as you've used the term tacitly assumes an atheistic universe -- one where there is no God. This assumption has an ideological, rather than scientific basis -- which is one implication of your statement that the designer is outside the purview of science.
Premises of science:
1) Observed events have a natural explanation.
2) Scientific principles don't change as time passes.
By its' definition, science can't include supernatural explanations. A poster who cannot be named pointed out that including supernatural explanations is even dangerous. If you go to a doctor and he brings out his magic bone to cure you, wouldn't you question his abilities? In the same way, if a scientist brings out God to explain why bacteria become penicillin resistant, wouldn't you question his abilities?
This doesn't make sense. What you've said (even if you didn't mean it) is that even if there is a Designer, science has to act as if there isn't -- which is not even remotely scientific.
No. I'm categorically not saying science has to act as if there is no Designer, even if there is.
What I'm saying is that the existence or non-existence of a Creator is a subject with which science does not concern itself. Evolution is a tool, if you will. A tool for describing and explaining the development of the organisms that inhabit this world. I think I understand why it worries/offends some Christians, but the only ones who really need worry are those who take Genesis as a literal, complete account of the Creation. Their worldview is seriously threatened by the factuality of evolution. If you aren't a literalist, however, you've really no quarrel with evolution. If you are, then you've got a whole lot of other problems (like the notion of a spherical Earth).
The real issue here is one of assumptions: "science" as you've used the term tacitly assumes an atheistic universe -- one where there is no God. This assumption has an ideological, rather than scientific basis -- which is one implication of your statement that the designer is outside the purview of science.
Listen, science has more than enough on its plate to explain natural phenomena without delving into the supernatural, which a Creator God would most certainly be. Science concerns itself with the physical, not the metaphysical. If you can devise a repeatable, scientific experiment that will test for the existence of a Supreme Being, then you might have a scientific theory worth exploring.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the belief that God isn't a supraliminal being, but rather a highly advanced natural entity, which then leads to the question of limits on God's abilities, which then leads to the notion that the hypothetical god isn't the God of the Bible after all. But that's still basically philosophy, and definitely falls outside this discussion.