Oh, I don't think most here think that the two (natural selection and ID) can't co-exist. In fact, there are many here who, if I understand their posts correctly, feel that natural selection is a tool used by their idea of an intelligent designer. It seems that Buttars feels they can't co-exist though. Have you read his stance? I got that he wants evolution out of schools entirely. It seems that ID proponents, when speaking about evolution, try to make it sound like evolution is all about the origins of life, instead of natural selection. What the debate is really about though is whether ID should be taught in a science class when at the present time it does not qualify as science. The ID proponents want to be given scientific theory status when they haven't done anything to earn that status. Saying "the bible says" or conjecturing that something is too complicated to happen by chance is not enough when it comes to being considered science. I don't think anyone here has a problem with ID being taught in a religion or philosophy class. The problem is that Buttars wants it taught as science and is trying to get that instituted. As for child bearing, the reason women go to hospitals now is to keep the mortality rate down. The mortality rate for both mothers and infants was much much higher when it was done without any medical help, and even initially when it was done with medical help, before Dr.'s figured out germs and that they needed to wash their hands to avoid transmitting infections. There are so many complications that can happen, and often do, with child birth. A lot of them are not that big of a deal today however because of modern medicine. --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page