Hi. Just thought I'd add something. One issue that differs greatly between intelligent design and evolution is the notion of disprovability. In other words, at its most basic ideal, evolution states that creatures are going to change from generation to generation based upon whatever factors make reproduction most likely.

In other words, if being hairier means I am more likely to have a hairy baby who in turn has a baby due to extreme hairiness, then I (and my progeny) are going to be hairier.

This is the hypothesis of evolution. It can be disproven. It's simple. If hairiness is extremely helpful to reproduction, but after a few generations hairiness does not become a predominant trait (aka if everyone isn't hairy), then the hypothesis of evolution has been disproven.

However, as we know, thanks to flowers and flies, it was not disproven, but rather supported.

Intelligent design, however, cannot be disproven. Its hypothesis is that some greater power determined our evolution. What kind of experiment might prove that not true? Answer: so far, none.

And that is the issue. Intelligent Design is NOT science because no experiment can be run to either disprove or provide evidence.

To make it even simpler, imagine a coin toss. My hypothesis is that it will come up heads. If it comes up tails, my hypothesis will be disproven.

In an allagorical way, Intelligent design has no "tails." If taught in science class, this theory WILL harm our children's already tenuous grasp of what makes science science.

So there you go. And there is the challenge. Scientists will start to accept ID as science the moment it starts becoming science. One of you crazy creationist kooks needs to come up with an experiment that COULD proove intelligent design wrong. If you do so, then FAIL to prove it wrong, science must accept you.

If not, sorry, you will continue to be ignored.