Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

I agree that given our experience with Psi there does seem to be a need to have some sort of spirit-based starting point to put the genie of non-local consciousness in the bottle of a physical body.

To me, however, part of this is because our own limited Psi capacity seems to run counter to natural selection's apparent exploitation of even quantum level properties. Could there be an alien race that does evolve incredible Psi ability and in turn designs humans to be much more limited? Of course this leads to all sorts of questions regarding what an evolutionary track toward greater exploitation of non-local consciousness would be like. [And there are arguably bigger problems like Nagel's question re: Origination of Reason.]

I do get that this sort of speculation feels like a movement toward the torturous and convoluted "Super Psi" type explanations, but I think any attempt to bring consideration of immaterial entities into science is going to face these sorts of questions. As such, it seems to try and get an understanding of ID and what it implies one has to bring in the rest of parapsychology of which I'd consider ID an incomplete facet.

As to whether this speculation is scientific I would say it is the natural course of reasoning we expect in the sciences. After all we will inevitably use our own intelligence to design species around us along with re-making ourselves via techologies such as CRISPR. If we destroy ourselves, whoever comes after us would be groundlessly limiting themselves to not speculate on who we were as they study the post-human world's genetic code.

Does this mean lack of speculation is "unscientific"? Again, I'd say so because the lack seems to be precisely because of how weak the ID bridge to a deity of any scripture is. The gods - assuming they existed - of old did not bend probabilities, they willed reality to conform to their desires. We have living practices wherein people invoke comparably minor spirits to manipulate probability. A serious science should draw the obvious parallels, as well as the obvious discrepancies.

Dictionary definition  of "scientific":

1: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
2: conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods.

Steps in the Scientific Method:
1 – Make an Observation. You can't study what you don't know is there. ...
2 – Ask a Question. ...
3 – Do Background Research. ...
4 – Form a Hypothesis. ...
5 – Conduct an Experiment. ...
6 – Analyze Results and Draw a Conclusion
7 - If the results warrant it, form a theory

It is apparent that speculation about the nature of the designer isn't a part of the scientific method, and therefore isn't "scientific". To make speculation "scientific" it must be fleshed out with a formal hypothesis to provisionally explain observations, the crucial conducting of an experiment, and analysis of results. Speculation about the nature of the designer has no elements of observation and conducting of experiments and analysis of results versus predictions of the hypothesis. There isn't anything "scientific" about pure speculation. 

The ID research conducted by those few ID-friendly scientists working in the field deliberately stays away from such speculation - it isn't science. These investigators are simply trying to scientifically establish that contrary to Darwinism there must have been some creative intelligent teleological factor in evolution, maybe a designer or designers, maybe something else. That is enough of a challenge, not finding "a bridge to a scriptural Deity" .

I think that scientists researching ID deliberately stay away from the question of the nature of the putative designer or designers (either immaterial or material) precisely because it just can't be investigated by the methods of science as it has been practiced for a few centuries.