And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.

Absolute faith in academy of Science is intrinsicism.

Your lofty condescension is an elegant posture; however, you completely misrepresent my stand on this issue.  If misrepresentation is your intention, let’s leave it at that.

If you care to address this non-conflict honestly, however, you are going to have to get it right first.

Science is the practice of grounding knowledge in the evidence of the senses. The result of doing science is objective identification of the facts of reality.

 

I accept this definition of science as completely as you do.

It is the politics of the scientific community that I criticize, believing for good reason, and with examples that I have cited, that the scientific establishment delays advancement for decades by a ready knee jerk rejection against newer discovery.  The ostensible reason is to protect the eternal laws of physics/universe, dogma, whatever; the actual reason is to protect reputations, access to grants and text book revenues.

When I encounter the post-modern proposition that "science is just another arbitrary belief,"

There is nothing  post-modern in my psyche, whatever.  This quote is not mine, or is horribly out of context.

So - you promote a doctrine you do not find either interesting or true, just so you get to annoy some bad people along with the good.