[QED Stepfiles]

While religious claims are not scientific claims, whenever you make any remark about an observable phenomenon, there is implicit scientific content in your statement. As was repeated ad nauseum throughout this thread - many religious ideologies escape the realm of testability, but this by no means means that some of the specifics of what such ideologies claim manages to do the same. Anything really that relates to concrete ideas in our natural world is subject (rightfully) to scientific scrutiny. It's not like comparing apples with oranges, it's like comparing vanilla ice cream with a chocolate/vanilla twist ice cream and remarking "hm, I don't know about the chocolate in this, but the vanilla smells a bit strange."

Of course, this falls down to whether or not you believe in science as an ideology - but then again, science is founded upon the simplest set of assumptions we can come up with, and is also founded upon observable, repeatable experiments, so Occam's Razor really doesn't favor religion or ID at all...

I'm actually not quite sure what you were getting at in the last paragraph, Devonin... I think you missed a punctuation mark or something because I couldn't really understand what the structure of the sentence was (the one with Occam's Razor) <.<... and most religious supporters (Christians especially) disagree wholeheartedly with the scientific perspective on how old the Universe is (it comes with the territory), so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.