On the one hand, you argue from the extreme (the freshman question) when that doesn't characterize all who are asking the questions. And by your defense of such "science" (that which is allowed to exclude and disqualify questions by caprice) sounds too much like the kind of christianity (or religion) that neither you nor I would accept as "scientific" -- that being the kind of religion soley supported by "circular reasoning (logic)". Incidentally, circular logic is a warning sign of possible faulty thinking, but does not dismiss reality - reality is self-supporting in the long run. But I digress...
On the other hand, in your second paragraph (addressed to me) you seem to imply that ID's answer to what you call "the problem of intentionality" is a religious one. That's demonstrably not true.
Yet, you simultaneously seem to imply that science has no problem "getting around" the necessity for "the problem of intentionality". That's demonstrably untrue as well. No matter how much drift we may be able to deduce from apparently close but changed species, we have not, as yet, empirically nailed down the cause or mechanism for the assumed change.
You leave the impression that is the ID crowd that has a problem with "intentionality", when it is quite the reverse.