If the foundation of your science is not scientific and this is immaterial then ID can have a slice of the cake too. Why do you say assertion? The only two shows in town that I know of for how life arose are naturalistic and creator originated. Both are religious.
False. And, as I said, totally immaterial.
SETI is looking for ETI and it doesn't know it exists. It has no reason suppose it exists other than on one or other religious ground. You are attempting to suspend the science in mid-air when the scientists themselves have already told us of their religious reasons for doing as they do.
Totally False. Again, you keep making unsupported assertions that there is some religious motivation in Science even when evidence is presented that that is not the case.
Abiogenesis is looking for a naturalistic explanation for life arising. This is religion and the very title of doctrine tells us to what religion it belongs.
Yet another FALSE statement, and yet another unsupported assertion. There is no religion involved in Abiogenesis. It is looking for the steps that lead to life. Where is there any religion involved in that?
What is being looked for is evidence of intelligent design. Design markers would be one area which would give some (even if only partial, theory building) evidence of intelligence at work. This wouldn't demolish ToE, it would just advance ID a notch
That's fine. No one much cares. If and when ID can come up with some evidence, then that evidence can be considered. However it is NOT and cannot be science. It begins with an assumption, that there is a designer. As long as it makes that initial assumption it will remain just another silly crackpot religion.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
