You will have to qualify your statement here because, the non-cultists understand I've shown you that many scientists that truly criticized evolution and actually peer reviewed your cult, and you (predictably) came unglued with myriad insults, as usual, so no,....you don't speak for all scientists and no one's appointed you as spokesman for all scientists either.
Would you insist that a Freudian psychologist accept astrology as a psychological tool and deem that they “and their ilk” had set themselves up as “mystical” gatekeepers if they refused?
Your strawmen just get more and more desperate don't they allmendream?
Once again “intelligent design” is not the same thing as “Intelligent Design” and the specific (and idiotic) claims of the “Cdesign proponentists” who advance it.
One day you'll stand all alone before the Creator explaining why it was so imperative of you to demand from children these differences, whatever it is you think or demand they be, and why you saw fit to make such absurd statements like "God doesn't belong in science class", and how it is you knew every single person's heart that was a proponent of ID and what it was they sought to teach children, scientifically or otherwise. Maybe then you'll even in turn get to defend every single godless NEA secular humanist and their hearts and what they sought to impart to children too.
Rather you understand what Christianity or science is, or not!
I should know not to expect anything of more depth from you.
Any argument you don't wish to address is a “strawman”.
Anyone you disagree with is a “NEA Godless liberal”.
Some day Behe will stand all alone before the Creator explaining why he thought God was so incompetent that God put in place a mechanism for changing living systems that was inadequate to the task and that therefore constant tinkering was needed to shore up a shoddy design.
That one I would like to hear.
‘It isn't that we thought you COULDN'T make evolution work, it is just that we thought you SHOULDN'T make it work.’