I never quite understood why folks needed to prove via ID that god created us, except that it allows them to teach it in schools. And if that's the case, then they're making public schools into "missionaries" to save the unconverted.  Granted most (probably a vast majority) of folks think of it that way... but not me.  I could care less if ID was in the public high school or not.  I only care if it is true.  Is it true when addressing bicycles?  True when addressing radio signals?  True when addressing the human eye or the first living cell?  "I prefer nothing unless it is true." (Socrates) 

 My edits are made not to push an agenda, but to give ID the strongest ideas in the strongest language possible.  Some concepts when put forth in their strongest ideas and strongest language remain absurd (ie. flat earth theories).  But ID does seem to have some legitimacy, at least apart from biology.  And it does have limitations.  I think we both agree on that... so why are edits made to polish up ID (so that it seems more legitimate) being reverted in the name of NPOV? 

 No one can use science to disprove religion. And no one can use religion to disprove science. Well, not without misrepresenting the truth about science or religion.  Have to disagree here.  If anthropologists found Jesus's bones, that would pretty much deep-six mainstream Christianity.  Similarly, the reason I am not a Mormon is because there is no scientific/historical evidence (ie. no gold plates) for Smith's claims.  And the reason I do not believe in 6-day creationism is because the physicists triangulate the oldest stars to be over 10 billion light years away.  Thus, if atheistic evolution is true, beyond a reasonable doubt... then to believe in a creator at all is absurd.  Faith must be grounded in reason.