1) ID is defined as: a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts.
Please define "purpose" as you are using it here. Also, please describe one falsifiable test for design that can be applied to a biological system.
Also, are you aware that you directly contradict yourself? You state...
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.
and later assert...
One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics.
Merely labeling your designer "quantum mechanics" does not change the fact that in order to satisfy your telelogical requirements the alleged designer must have purpose. Is it your assertion that the natural forces at work on the quantum level have a purpose (and therefore intelligence)?
ID does not seek to replace evolution, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science and base science back on the tenets of science.
First, there is no "secular humanist religion" in science. Science is a reliable system for learning about the natural world. It is amusing that ID supporters are such great fans of science until it treats their pet idea the same way it does everything else.
There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.
Then why is ID not accepted by the science establishment. Is there perhaps a conspiracy of some sort or are biologists, chemists, et al. just stupid and deluded?
Sounds like a start.
Not to me, if you mean a starting place for ID to be treated like a science. Refferring to some philosophy and throwing in a few quotes and so forth certainly doesn't sound like a start.
Do you know what would? A falsifiable test for design.
™ Version 4.2