Intelligent Design == Human Design?

I doubt that you have any evidence to support this. It is more likely that they did not choose at all, but were simply raised at a time and place where religious indoctrination was a part of the cultural tradition.Many of the scientists I have known were Christian. But their religion played no role in their science. They were very effective at compartmentalizing their lives. They did not bring their religion to the science lab, and they did not apply their scientific methods in their churches.I should add here, that I am only assuming that they were Christian. I did not attempt to discuss religion with them, and they did not attempt to discuss religion with me. Moreover, I will admit that in the two cases where the topic of religion happened to come up, my assumption was probably wrong.In one case my colleague, who was a regular Church attendee, confided that "it's a bunch of hooey." My best guess is that he was attending Church only as a social event.In the other case I knew that my colleague regularly attended Church, and was the organist there. A bunch of people in the coffee room were talking - I am not sure what was the general topic. I remember throwing out the rhetorical question "what do you call an atheist who regularly attends Church?" Without hesitation, my colleague replied "The organist."

There has been a severe scarcity of evidence in your posts. That's not evidence. That's a question, though poorly punctuated. As written, it is a meaningless question. You would have to precisely define what you mean by "vacuum" and what you mean by "edges", before anybody could make sense of it.

I don't think there is such a thing (unless you are actually talking of relative pressure - relative to the surroundings). That's not what people usually mean by "vacuum". You can have pressure gradations without any need for boundaries. An example would be the gradation of pressure from the earth's atmosphere to the vacuum of outer space.

However, there is no unambiguous evidence favoring this proposal. The proponents of ID claim that it is science, and that it should be taught in the science curriculum. This would have the effect of putting worthless pseudo-science in the curriculum, and would tend to confuse students as to the nature of science.

I don't ignore ID. I laugh at its follies.

The commitment to a God of the gaps, and the self delusion involved in that commitment.

So you have a flying car? Interesting.I'm wondering if this was you?