No problem, but at the same time, you would be unjustified in claiming that relativity is false doctrine.

DWA: I have strong suspicions from my (Barbarian "assisted") explorations of the Doppler effect with Mach 1 sources that "relativity" as "understood" really is flawed.

Don't forget your final realization that EM waves are not sound and that you couldn't expect them to behave the same.

DWA: There are hints in a Scientific American article that "relativity" is not quite everything that one might wish it to be, that is, absolutely true and explanatory as presently concieved by complex obscuring mathematical symbols and shorthand.

Nobody suggested it was, but if you don't understand it, you don't have much of a basis for dismissing it. There is always a chance you might be right, but lucky shots don't stand up to repetitive testing and those hunches don't become part of the scientific lexicon.

DWA: No matter how it is sliced, I think there may be chunks of intelligence influenced DNA baloney.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't expect to convince anyone else when you don't understand the subject to begin with.

DWA: Naturally, the only defense available to the average layperson is to be stubbornly skeptical, and not buy.

The good ole, "I'm agin it!". It fits you well.

DWA: When "science" intrudes without justification into realms of religion, without final dispositive infallible proof, I think it is going too far. Live and let live, as in a well ordered feed lot?

Sorry, but the issue here is quite the opposite. While I realize that there are atheists who love insulting and demeaning religion, ID is an attempt by religious people to intrude on science. Keep your cows away from my trough or don't complain when they get slaughtered.

DWA: Look, Frank, you are approving and/or advocating "parsimony" as a path to truth and simultaneously suggesting just now that "relativity" can't be formulated into something that someone can actually rightly see and understand.

Excuse me? Your ADHD-slip is showing again. You have done quite a bit of projecting and overgeneralizing from my statement. I just said that just because relativity may not be able to be dumbed down enough for you or others with a kindergarten mindset doesn't mean that it isn't a valid scientific theory.

DWA: With "evolution" the problem is not with the simplified extreme theory-inference, (?natural progression over eons of improbable or actually probable events, then survival of the ?fittest) that "life" just started in a primal soup somewhere, and developed to its present astronomical complexity without a smidgen of causative "intelligence". The "evolution" problem is with certainty over holding an exclusive right to the whole ***presumed*** truth.

No, you are generalizing and projecting again. Evolution is just about the history of life on this planet.

DWA: Conclusion: "Relativity" will make more sense when more facts are at hand. Likewise, "intelligent design" versus "evolution".

More sense is always nice, but there is no reason to accept nonsense while you are waiting.

DWA: Stalemate? Or, do you still have some conclusive complete Bayesian analysis of the actually inaccessible incomplete history of life in your pocket?