Don, The problem with intelligent design is that it is a circular argument. If someone or something is responsible for the intelligent design, then who created the designer? Did they simply form from the primordial ooze? Such a being would be far more complex and/or advanced than humans, so they too MUST have been "created" by an intelligent designer..... and so on, and so on, and so on!!! There is no logical conclusion to this line of reasoning, except that an eternal being did the creation. This is what I call religion, and it should be taught in church, not in science class. I am a very religious person, who believes that creation should be taught in church..... and science should be taught in schools. Respectfully, Tyler Allred ____________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+tylerallred=earthlink.net@mailman.xmission.co m] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:02 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] science and religion Rich How would an advanced race create another species? They would use existing species and genetic manipulation to create a new species. So in Intelligent Design versus blind evolution the question is, which is more probable, that through the history of life genetic manipulation has occurred through intelligent design or have random events caused the creation of various life forms. This can be addressed by probability and statistics. That's where David Berlinski and other mathematicians come into the argument. Their claim is that blind evolution is wildly improbable and that some other mechanism or intelligent design is far more probable.