That was my complete statement. I don't post it because I think you left any significant part out. I simply want to make a point.
I truly am NOT a libertarian. And I truly AM a conservative. At some point, I get to assert my own affiliations and my own beliefs. Others are free to dissect them and say "Y is close to Z, therefore there are many traits of Z present." That's their right. They can analyze and dissect all day long....but I'm not a libertarian.
Likewise, the fact that a "Designer" has to be accounted for doesn't make me a "creationist."
It seems to me that you really DON'T have to find the identity of the designer for a designer to have brought about life on earth.
I can see TOTALLY non-religious people concluding that a "designer" guided the development of life on earth.
I can see TOTALLY non-religious people concluding that a "designer" guided the development of life on earth.
The identity of the alleged designer is irrelevent. But some key attributes must be asserted for any possible designer, such as whether the designer originated through evolution or through special creation.
Pushing evolution back in time or space does not argue against evolution as a process. It could be historically true that life on earth was designed by other beings, but the question of their origin remains.
No matter how you wiggle and squirm, if the process of evolution is asserted to be impossible or not historically correct, you are asserting special creation.
The ultimate cause of our existence is not addressed by science. Science only attempts to study processes. It is possible for a scientist to be religious, but it is rare for a science as a whole to ignore overwhelming evidence for a process.