I myself am not religious. I reject the inclusion of an intelligent designer into the field of biology as his existence cannot possibly be tested or observed. (Even if we witness what appears to be design, we are only witnessing the “product” - we do not see the producer.) I do not, however, reject the possibility that such an intelligent designer exists. He very well could. I don’t know, and I’m not willing to have faith. But whether or not he exists is a moot point for science unless he reveals himself. As the New Testament says, though, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
Oh, this one again. So we cannot identify design unless we can also identify the designer. Hey, genius, suppose I give you a computer program. Would you conclude that we cannot say it is intelligently designed until we know who designed it? Use your brain for a minute if you can.
Suppose we receive an apparently intelligent message from space. Should we reject the idea that it originated from an intelligent source until we can identify that source? Use your brain for a minute if you can. It won’t hurt too much.
Verbal irony aside
I would not conclude that if you gave me a computer program and I did not know who programmed it, then the program simply was. Even if the program had no credits whatsoever (i.e. no mentioning of any lead programmer, teams, etc.), it would still not make sense to claim, This program is not the product of any mind or minds. Not only would it not make sense, it would also not be scientific.
So, whats the difference between this and intelligent design ideology? Nothing, really. As you saw in your quotation, I acknowledge the possibility that an intelligent designer exists. Really, he might. But, its not scientific to say, Well, I RussP am too smart to see the massive amount of evidence that is in favor of natural selection and mutation being sufficient to account for natural diversity, so God did it all. And, the burden of that proof is on you, not me. Im sure you agree with me on that. The only way your creationism can be considered scientific is if science is expanded to include supernatural phenomena. As James Randi has demonstrated, supernatural phenomena has a nasty habit of not working under controlled lab conditions. Wonder why.
I ask that you please keep the context of the controversy in mind. Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller that you cant teach intelligent design in the public science classroom. He didnt rule that you couldnt teach it in another class; it just cant be a science class.
Im all for any of your attempts to strengthen the role of creationism in history or composition classes. Go ahead. But, if you try for one second to add creationism to the science classroom, then I wont offer you an iota of support.
Science must be testable and bound by natural law. Since an “intelligent designer” is neither testable nor bound by natural law, ID cannot be classified as a science. In truth, it is anti-science. It abandons natural law in favor of a presumption of the super-natural. For example, you argued that the burden of proof was on scientists to prove a natural explanation for the development of the human ear, otherwise it should be considered the creation of an intelligent designer. This is the direct opposite of the scientific method, in which natural causes must be assumed.