question: by admitting to "God" does science lose its grounds?
Why would it? Science attempts to uncover why and how something is. Whether it was intentional or capricious seems to be inconsequential to the natural questions.
question: so, if a scientist accepts that all things were based by an intelligent entity, he also asserts that everything was designed?
Not necessarily. For me, I don't think so much that God exists, as much as I believe that He
is the existence. Does that make any sense?
I think that while God establishes universal laws, that does not mean that God micromanages every detail. For instance, if you see some ants working together, I don't believe that God is "directing" them. This seems to go along with freewill anyhow.
question: so a scientist accepting that an intelligent entity was first may not be religious?
I honestly don't believe so. The teleological argument is different from an ontological one. I know many people that believe in God that certainly would not characterize themselves as being "religious." That's why it kind of bothers me when people say that ID is just religion in disguise. I have no doubt that some would try to misappropriate it. And I can appreciate that. But for me, theology and science are two totally different subjects. While I think they can converge at times, they are not one and the same.
“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
™ Version 4.2
