Devastating articles such as this one by Reason's Ronald Bailey are what you get when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I would suggest that you not only read the article, but take time to read the many background citings. Find out just how over-your-head most of you are in even discussing this stuff. Oh, sure, there are tens of millions, if not more, who believe profoundly that "Intelligent Design" is not only true, but is a perfectly valid scientific theory. But most are also ignorant of most of what constitutes science and how it's conducted. High school lab just doesn't give people anywhere near the background needed to understand how bad ID is, as science. This gives us the very odd spectacle of layman believing ID based on [their knowledge of] science and the few "real scientists" who believe it, based on faith, because their faith comes before scientific observation. Personally, my very biggest problem with this "theory" is that it's a profound non-explanation that religionists have the effrontery to call "science." It's an insolent slap in the face of science, the traditions of which are great and important. Science endeavors to actually explain things, not...