There’s a guy named Greg Easterbrook who writes for nfl.com who had a GREAT piece on this. It kind of stems from my argument I made earlier in the thread but he states it a LOT better.
Yes, he’s a football writer but he’s also a professor and such so he often covers other subjects in his NFL columns. Here’s the link to the whole article which is mostly about the Super Bowl and other subjects but I’ll copy/paste the part on Intelligent Design below. It’s interesting stuff and he does it without bashing any of the two beliefs.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9213999
"Higher Power Is Guiding "Intelligent Design"Politics:
Yours truly thinks the “intelligent design” idea is being given the short shrift by the mainstream media. Yes, some intelligent design advocates want to use I.D. as a Trojan horse to put religious doctrine into public schools – forbidden by the First Amendment, and wisely so in the opinion of this churchgoer. And some intelligent design advocates believe young Earth creationism, a nutty idea for which there isn’t one iota of scientific evidence. But as they mock the notion of intelligent design, the mainstream media are systematically avoiding a substantial question mark in evolutionary theory: it does not explain the origin of life. That organisms evolve in response to changes in their environment is well-established – anyone who doubts this doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. But why are there living things in the first place? Darwin said he had no idea, and to this day science has little beyond wild guesses about the origin of life. Maybe life had a natural origin that one day will be discovered. Until such time, higher powers or the divine cannot be ruled out. Exactly because I think intelligent design is a more important concept than the mainstream media will admit, I really wish right-wing screwballs would stop advocating I.D. – they’re giving the idea a bad name! First, it’s common to hear them say evolution can be disregarded because it’s “just a theory.”
This is ill-informed. In everyday usage, “theory” can mean a conjectural or unlikely claim. (“See, I have this theory why Maria Sharapova would go out with me.”) In science, a theory is an idea that has well-accepted supporting principles, has been tested successfully and that no one has falsified; in science the word theory conveys high standing. For instance, first relativity was an analytical idea, then a hypothesis, then after many years of testing was acknowledged as a theory. When in 1996 Pope John Paul II called Darwinianism “more than a hypothesis,” he was choosing words precisely. Many on today’s anti-science right appear ignorant of such basic precepts as the definition of the word theory.
The screwball fringe keeps proposing I.D.-related legislation that shows it doesn’t even understand the limits of evolutionary theory. Two years ago some science illiterates in Cobb County, Ga., got the local Board of Education to mandate stickers on biology textbooks reading, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of living things. The core quandary of Darwinian logic is that we can imagine how living things evolve but cannot imagine how they came into existence in the first place. Now a know-nothing Utah state representative has proposed this bill that "requires the State Board of Education to establish curriculum requirements and policies that stress that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life