"I'm not so sure. Would you be happy with a version of 'intelligent designer' with lots of designers, for example?"

This isn't what is being argued.

Science is right when it claims:

1. Science has not concluded a "first cause" , a "creator" or a "creation".

2. It is not the job of science to find a "creator" unless it is the natural deduction taken from scientific method and discovery.

3. Science cannot act from prepositional philosophy. It works from working theory until such time as that theory yields to a better understanding.

The step too far in "science" – the issue that is attempting to be addressed is:

1. Just because science has not concluded a creation is not the same thing as science having disproved a creation. It's well worth the arguing over specific "creation" models that do not stand up to science, and it is worth considering within the confines of religion and philosophy that science may be drawing wrong conclusions.   But as to the simple question being fought out – science has not disproven a creation or intelligent design –though, in our schools it is teaching this as a fait accompli.

2. Those who claim to represent "science" are themselves claiming an exclusivity that ignores that there are scientists on both sides of this argument.

3. Those arguing for the presentation of Intelligent design are not arguing from a religious POV. For example, Michael Behe is a scientist. He is not religious.