and just for the record- I see you are quite fond of moving the goalposts- apparently, if some scientist believes the evidence, and doesn’t htink nature is capable of creatign IC and informaiton, then by golly they must have some ‘hidden religious agenda’, and apparently, the only ones capable of makign scientific judgements in your goalpost moving mind are atheists? Youll find a list on DI called Dissent from Darwin which includes over 700 scientists from all walks of life- soem beleivers, some agnostic, some wh othink God started macroevolution after the created kinds etc- Heck, there’s probably even some who are athiest who signed on- As well I gave a list from Wallace’s website that showed evolutionsits who are intellectually honest enough to cede that life could not have vioalted the 2LOT, and you’ll find many quotes o nthe net from evolutionsits who nonetheless beleive the evidence doesn’t support the ‘consensus’ hypothesis that RM+NS= Macroevolution, and htink there must be another mechanism by which life evolved- And, to top it off, you’ll find the symposium of top scientists in Chicago awhiel ago who concluded that life could not have statistically happened via RM+NS- Do all these folks have soem ‘hidden agenda’ in your mind?
No, having a significant number of atheists on your side, as there are a significant number of the religious on evolution's side, would lend some credence to ID not being religiously motivated. You have yet to show even one, yet alone a decent percentage.