Cal

There was no "before" the big bang. The big bang created the very space-time continuum in which we exist. Second, matter may have existed in some form at the point of the big bang, but, for sure, it did not consist of atoms as they presently exist--the energy level was way to high for atoms to be present.Also, please, in your writing, make the distinction between the evolution of the universe, which is primarily the province of physics and chemistry, and organic evolution which is the province of Biology. They pretty much have nothing to do with eachother, other than that the big bang made matter (including carbon) form as it did, with its chemical properties that support life.

Outshined--I will agree that the old semantic trueism that "the word is not the thing" requires that we not quible over the definition of theory. If you insist that something with so little factual or scientific evidence supporting it as ID, is a theory, be my guest.As I understand it, ID is premised on the idea that nothing as complicated as some of the organic or biochemical systems and structures in living things could have come about as the result of the random interactions of atoms and molecules. That makes ID a supposition. For it to be a theory, there should be some fact that shows that matter is incapable of complex interaction. It requires some evidence of an interveing agency other than the chemical nature of atoms and molecules to form complex patterns and for those patterns to spontaneously evolve into ever more complex forms. ID proponents have yet to show that such complexity can NOT arize out of lesser complexity. In fact, there are models of matter that show that, indeed, complexity can and does arize from lesser complex systems. ID proponents rely on structures like the eye to show that a stucture without function seems to violate the rule of natural selection. However, they igore the clear pattern in nature that shows that simple structures, say like a photoreceptor, can and did go thru a natural progression toward the complex eye, that requires no special forces other than mutation and selection. If ID is a theory, then, before it shows up in Biology books, it needs, at minimum, a reliable set of observed facts, that can't be just as easily explained using evolutionary theory, since the rest of the facts point DIRECTLY to evolution.

Research: to find or obtain information from a source. A source may be considered credible when in truth it is not, and conversely, a source may not be considered credible even when in truth it is. A source considered credible may also possess information that is not true, and a source not considered credible may have information that is true. Thus it would help to have some way to be able to find the truth from wherever the truth can be found, and not merely to rely upon a source as knowing the truth in all things simply because it has been found to know the truth in some things, or conversely. Hypothesis: a reasonable explanation of available information. One hypothesis is often discounted for another when more information is found. It is important to note that a reasonable explanation may not be true, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Experimental design: a design or pattern used to test information, usually to determine whether the source information or hypothesis can be considered credible. As with an hypothesis, this pattern or test may be discounted if new information is found or found to be more credible, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Data and observations: The type of information that is obtained through research. See the definition for research above. It is important to note that data and observations recorded in a book are not necessarily true merely because that data and observations have been recorded in a book, even if that book is very old. Thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Analysis of data: The process of reviewing and organizing or classifying information obtained through research or a personal witness, with the analysis usually resulting in a hypothesis. It is important to note that an analysis may not be true (or honest), so the analysis may be discarded once the information is analyzed again or new information is obtained which leads to a more reasonable explanation (or hypothesis). Thus is would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Conclusion (theory): a reasonable explanation of information which has been tested for credibility. As with the others steps involved in this scientific method concerning information, a conclusion (or theory) may be discounted once the information has been reconsidered or new information has been found, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Now, in conclusion of my summary of these steps involving the scientific methods concerning information, I testify that our greatest source of information and truth is God, and to know the truth from God we must research information from God by reading the scriptures and everything else people claim has come through revelations from God (an analysis of data using data and observations), study that information and reflect upon it in our minds (experimental design), form a reasonable explanation (hypothesis) about it, and ask God if we correctly understand and interpret the information He has given us, thus providing a conclusion (theory) to our search for the truth. If we do everything but ask God if we correctly understand Him, or fail to wait for a response from Him to assure us (give us faith) that we correctly understand Him, we are merely relying upon what we think is right and thus it would still help to be able to have some way to be able to find and know the truth. Well, that's just dandy! Since God is the source of all truth, we can do away with all this science stuff and wait for God to reveal it. Personally, I'm sure glad we didn't wait for God to reveal heart by pass surgery and that we humans employed the scientific method instead. Frankly, I've yet seen God reveal anything to scientists where they didn't give it a big dose of the SM first. BTW, you completely distorted the meaning of experimental design. Read up, friend. What you described has nothing to do with an experiment. And experiment requires controls and awareness of the variables that can affect the outcome. Scientific experiments to be valid must account for dependent and independent variables. How does your definition fit in with that? For example, when you get a flash of revelation on how to cure diabetes, without doing any legitimate scientifc research, how do you know that information came from God, and not the ability of the human mind to gather facts and solve problems. By the way, when was the last time a cure to a major human disease was found without applying the scientific method, as I described it?

Not at all. I'm glad you finally agree with me!

Frankly, I must ask, can you honestly say, his earning power made no difference to you. I seriously doubt it, even if you say so. I think you are decieving yourself.Secondly, that you consider yourself an exception, hardly disproves the rule. It takes more than a few exceptions to do that. Read the research again.

So, you think that just preaching to a gay person is going to stop them from being gay? Maybe we could preach to the Chimps too--they are actually pretty smart. Just preaching? It is about spiritual laws. If they have been given these teachings and choose to ignore them (which they are free to do) then they have chosen to ignore teachings which require a higher level of spiritual adherence. There are always laws and law breakers. But Chimps aren't given the same laws as man. Get over it. Really? Who made the law that says that being born gay is a sin? Who said being born a gay was a sin? It is acting upon that weakness which is a sin. Why can't you separate these two concepts? Who said it was a weakness? Is hetersexuality a weakness?

Trav--I thought you had a back ground in science--no offense, but this is some of the most unscientific thinking I have encountered from a person educated in science. First, a 50% correlation for any biological trait is considered STRONG evidence of genetic correlation. Second, you make the mistake of equating homosexual orientation, with homosexual behavior. Obviously people can learn to control their behavior. That has nothing to do with what it means to be homosexual. You are talking about the individual's very sense of biological identity. We're not talking about just a tendency, we are talking about an unalteable characteristic. Think of it this way: Could you, as a heterosexual, simply change your sexual orientation because society told you you had to? or that it was evil to be hetero and you had to change that. Could you? My background is Math and Physics - I currently work as a Principal Engineer in the robotics and automation industry I have also worked as an engineer in the aerospace industry (total over 30 years practical experience). My scientific automation design philosophies were highlighted as the cover article (not written by me) in the publication “Automated Material Handling”. (Would you like the month and year of the article)? What is your scientific background? One basic tenet of scientific thinking is to question the methods and means others use to draw their conclusions. I find your reluctance to provide detail in your logic most unscientific. I would of thought that you would have been excited and elated at the prospect of elaborating on your logic processes. But lets ask some questions: 1. Who paid for the study? 2. What 50% showed genetic correlation and what 50% showed no genetic correlation? 3. How were the twins in the study group identified? 4. What considerations were studied in the placement of 50% possible genetic correlation in homosexuality group? For example were those with homosexual tendencies placed in the homes of University educators that live in an environment where 70% of the population openly supports homosexuality or were they placed among agrarian society with less than 20% openly support homosexuality? 5. Do the authors of the article agree with you that genetic correlation to homosexuality is the only possible conclusion to the study? 6. Did the authors of the article espouse genetic correlation to homosexuality prior to the study? As a scientist this would be only the beginning of questions I would ask. Also you are disturbed with my equating homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior. The reason I do so is because the biological function in operation is reproductive. The only part of that biological function that can be considered orientation is the cognitive responses and behaviors. All non-cognitive reproductive biological functions are identical in both heterosexual and homosexuals. If I have errored in this assessment please advise me of the non-cognitive biological functions that are different. Since scientists such as Pavlov and Skinner have demonstrated that [ANY] cognitive biological function can be altered by aggressive learning process involving positive and negative stimulation, I have labeled the cognitive parts of the biological reproductive process as behavior. Would you please explain to me why you would label any cognitive response as strictly genetic orentation? The Traveler First, you can read the studies for yourself. They are well known and can be fairly easily accessed through Google research. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go beyond the fundamental conclusions reached by the studies--your accusation that I have not provided logical reasoning I find, well, illogical. On the otherhand, what evidence or study can you site that would show that homosexuality is purely environmental. Fact is, the Minnesota and Australian studies establish that it is not just environmental as Skinner or Pavlov would have us believe. They were of the school that all human behavior is environmentally determined. The most recent research is showing more and more how genetics plays a powerful part in human behavior. Neither Skinner nor Pavlov would have been aware that homosexuals have anatomical structures in their brains that resemble that of the other sex--are you going to try to tell me that brain anatomy is environmental?

I have a friend who is a clinical therapist specializing in sexual disorders. He works for a department of the state studying sex offenders. He told me once that there is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual behavior, that it is a verb, not a noun. Then, there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only heterosexual behavior.

I would be a little more impressed if you could give some logical reasons for your opinion, but that is your choice. No hard feelings.

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement. Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement? It is about the way you are portraying women in this argument. Like we are all money-hungry, lazy, socially-conscious witches (with a capital B ). That article you linked, while it does offer a glimpse of what women look for, it in no wise details the why's. And the why's are more important than the what's. I'm made no reference to the WHY's, but I'm glad you agree to the what. At least you didn't post anything to refute it. Secondly, where did I say women in general were lazy, money-hungary, or witches? You first implied that I would think ALL women were just one way. I don't remember saying that women were lazy. I said, a lot of women don't get an education before they get married. Can you refute that? It doesn't mean they are lazy, it means they are making a bad decision. Second, that women are more social conscious is simply a fact pointed out in the studies I refered you to. Can you refute that? Third, "money-hungary" was not a term I used, if I did, then I am willing to tone it down to "in search of a man with a good job", if their looks can attract it. You don't like what I have said, perhaps, because you could be in that group of women that haven't been able to attract a man that makes a lot of money. I don't hold that against you---not all women are California 10's. That is nothing against you. If you are... then, take my word for it, you CAN get a guy, who not only has a great personality and character, he also has a great job.

I am not arguing with you about what men prefer, that is like a DUH! kind of statement. Then what are you arguing about? What is your disagreement?

Just to get you going here is the first reference as to what men tend to look for in a female. http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec07.htm There are lots of research references at the bottom. As to what women want--notice the difference--the emphasis is on material security. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=c...ation&refid=013

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)? I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel. I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule. Who says which is the exception and which is the rule? The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men. Cal, you keep coming up with all these "general rules". Where do you find these "general rules"? Is there a handbook somewhere? We keep asking you for proof of your allegations, and you supply none. And when personal testimony after personall testimony is supplied by many people on this board, we are the exceptions to the "rule". That's a lot of exceptions to the rule. Perhaps I could offer an alternative conclusion. Your "general rules" are all in your mind. Your attitude about this whole subject makes me want to ask if your wife ran off and took you for all you're worth. You have yet to show me why what I have said is NOT the general rule. A few exceptions doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Nevertheless, not to violate ANOTHER rule of logic which says that the proponent of a hypothesis bears the burden of proof I will site you some studies. But if I post them, you must also promise to do one thing: either admit that my general statement that men are more inclined to pursue good looks, and women are more inclined to pursue economics, OR provide studies that directly controvert mine. Agreed?

I'm in good company then. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/int...ntelligent.html http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec25.html Oxford Dictionary: the·o·ry An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. If it makes you feel better, redefine the word all you want. Ok, let' go with the Oxford definition: The definition itself says the theory is based on limited information or knowledge. Even if this is the common definition, instead of the scientific one, which I think it is, ALL information is limited. There is no such things as UNLIMITED information or knowledge. Therefore, creationism is not a theory as it is based on NO information of any credible scientific nature. There isn't one piece of credible evidence that points one in the direction of an instantaneous creation of the universe. The second definition, a conjecture, makes the whole definition given here, ambiguous. Conjecture seems to imply a simple guess. That is more akin to the term, hypothesis, which is a term used in science to denote that very thing--a guess, without much support. So, actually, you are not in good company. Most scientists can make the distinction between theory and hypothesis. Creationism, if you will, is more akin to a hypothesis, than a theory. Even in undergrad science classes one learns that the scientific method can be, more or less, stated in a series of steps. Research, hypothesis, experimental design, data and observations, analysis of data and observations and conclusion (theory). If you can't apply those steps before ariving at the conclusion or theory, then you haven't done science, pure and simple.

Cal, I apologise for putting words into your mouth...yes, I was stating what I believed you meant by the words you said...when you said it was of 'lesser economic value' than 'what most men do' I felt a little insulted, because I feel that the care of the family is worth much more than any highly paid job, and so alimony shouldn't be set purely on a like for like measure according to how much the family would have had to pay for a nanny, cook, cleaner etc. to do the work that the wife did whilst her husband was out working. I hope that clarifies my position a little better... Please note the words ' I WAS NOT SAYING'...I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job... I was saying that I would marry someone whether or not he was employed...then I mentioned that this would be because I would marry for love, and love makes people do things which may be considered foolish by others. I agree that most men probably don't consider the value of their future wife's career, expecting that she would be the one to care for the children at home if they could afford for her to stay at home...I find that a sexist attitude, however. Unfortunately, as I said before, where I live it is often the case that both partners have to work to raise the family... I don't wish to put words in your mouth again, but did you insinuate somewhere, in one of your earlier posts regarding alimony, that it was the woman's choice alone to have the children, so she should be the one to stay at home and look after them? How do you know it was the woman's choice alone? Sorry, I probably am putting words into your mouth again...you were probably just referring to the fact that the woman could refuse to have a child even if her husband wanted one and she didn't...but if she agreed to have a child because he wanted one, or if they both chose to have the child, then it should still be the woman's responsibility to care for the child and suffer the loss of her career/financial independence? Because she chose to have the child???? I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it...I'm tired, its 2.40am here and time I went to bed!! LOL 2:40 am? wooooo....you are a nite owl. by the way, where in uk do you live?

Actually, the scientific community seesm to be treating it as a theory, albeit a theory with which they disagree. Just because it is based on something intangible doesn't mean you don't call it a theory. And oddly, I've seen a few ID theorists who lean toward not a God figure, but an alien creator. Some of it gets pretty weird. LINK LINK ID is a theory, as is evolution, though evolution is based on evidence, and ID is based on, well, something else. Yeah, well the "something else" makes all the difference. In science a Theory MUST be based on facts and observations, or it is simply NOT a theory. It is speculation. You are confusing the terms---as do most of the lay public.

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right? Well no, actually... I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums... As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men! I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable. Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say? Second, you said..... I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier? Okay, as far as the alimony question goes...yes I agree that anybody, male or female, would be well advised to get themselves educated and in a financially stable position before entering into marriage. What happens afterwards is not always so simple an equation...When I was married and had my 1st child, I worked part time afterwards, this was beneficial to both me and my husband and our child, as it meant that I got to spend time at home during the day, looking after our daughter, whilst my husband worked, then I went to work in the evenings when he looked after her. It also meant that whenever she was ill I was automatically on-call, she was ill lots during her first year, spent lots of time in hospital...there was no question of who would take any time off work to stay in the hospital with her...it had to be me, because I was the female and I was only working part-time, even tho my rate of pay was higher than my husband's and I did enough overtime to make me a full time worker...I just spread my hours out over the full 7 days instead of 5. Maybe I've lost the point of the argument over alimony now...it isn't something that I felt I needed when I was divorced, even though I did have to rely on state benefits following the divorce (I was already not working due to ill health though). I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends. On the other point you made...about my being 'lucky to have a husband with a job at all..' I knew that you would read that differently to how it was intended to sound. Would anybody not consider themselves lucky to have a partner who was employed rather than unemployed? be that a male partner or female? Or even luckier to both be employed? I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...I think love enters into the equation somewhere along the line too doesn't it? and if you love somebody then you don't always consider whether they are employed or unemployed...people lose jobs too you know, do you think that I would have walked out on my husband if that happened to him? No I wouldn't...It might be unwise to marry someone for love alone, and disregard the financial state of things...but that's life...some people do this, not every woman only searches for a husband who has a job. You keep telling me I said things that I DID NOT say. I never said that the woman's care of the house was LESS IMPORTANT, I said it was of lesser economic value than what most men do. That doesn't make it less important. Why can you not limit your comments to what I said, not what you read into it. My comment about womens house work was in response to a comment about how women work in the house and so men should have to compensate them for that when they get divorced. My point was simply the logic that 1) compensation should be based on value for value (economic, not moral). 2) that what women do doesn't have the value, monetarily, of what men generally do. I don't devalue it, I only give it the value that any economist would. Perhaps I could accuse you of devalueing what men do? But, you have not said you do, so I won't accuse you of it. You also said you would probably not have married someone without a job? Again you make my point, because MEN regularly marry women who don't have much in the way of job skills. Why? Back to my original comment--men don't value job skills in women as much as women value them in men. Men are used to taking the responsibility for the major financial burden--they would just rather do it for a California 10, than an Idaho 4. (As he braces himself for the estrogenal battering to come)

It's your whole attitude towards stay at home moms that is heartless. You think we're freeloaders, and you don't even see the value in a stay at home mom. Like your daughter, I chose to educate myself before marriage too. Has your daughter been raising five children for seventeen years? Do you propose that I work fulltime while I raise my five children so that I can keep up with the skills needed to make a liveable income? People can't do EVERYTHING. Children deserve to have a parent there for them. Neither my husband or I desire latchkey kids. My husband works very long hours. Someone has to be there for them. Had I been going to work everyday,and not staying home being a MOM, I'd have been climbing the ladder to success along with my husband. If I were suddenly single, it would take me a few years to be able to provide a liveable income for my children because I've been at home raising my kids. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not because I'm some lazy n'erdowell freeloader. It's because this is the course my husband and I TOGETHER chose to take. Marriage is a partnership. I'm not soft headed and stupid as you presume. This was a joint decision. If my husband suddenly dumped me to run off with his 25 year old secretary, I'd need a little help getting back on my feet. I think you may have misunderstood my position: First, I'm not refering to you in any of this. Clearly, if you get yourself educated, then you are in a much better situation than if you had not. I'm not talking about those women that do get educated, only the ones that DON'T and THEN whine an complain about their situation--they are responsible for some of it. Second, I never said that women shouldn't stay home and take care of the kids! It think that is exactly what they should do if they chose to have them. It's the way it should be. Just realize that staying home and taking care of kids is not a license to turn into Sasquach! I still don't see why you think anything I have said is heartless. If a couple, after properly educating BOTH of themselves, THEN chose to get married and do what you have done, then clearly there is justification for expecting Atila to 1) pay child support and 2) help you get back into the workplace. I have nothing against that. My main point was directed to those women that think that men owe it to them to support them forever, when they have not bothered to educate themselves past high school.

And it is evolving as we speak--hope you get to feeling better! Thangks, budt I'b nodt quite better yet. Dang Santa Ana winds got by dose stubbed up agaidn. I swear, they ought to put those little red "biohazard" stickers on little kids' foreheads. Pint-sized biological weapons, they are. I can't stand the Santa Ana's either--its crumby that the nicest clearest days are messed up by pollen and dust---the bain of a hayfever-sufferer's existance.

Let me guess, he is a creationist. Tell me WHERE he got his degree and where he works. Google: Sounds like a typical egghead to me... Sounds like he also has a religious axe to grind. A very scientific study has shown that among even Mormon Biological scientists, the vast majority accept evolution as the best theory to describe the facts observed. Most find that they can harmonize evolution with their religious beliefs.

And it is evolving as we speak--hope you get to feeling better!

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say. That you don't agree, not to be insulting, with something that experts in a field say, makes you sound really silly. It would be like me, as a science teacher saying that I disagree with Sandbergs history of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I'm in no position to HAVE an opinion on it since I haven't read it and am not an expert in the history of the life of Abe Lincoln.Study the subject, then have an opinion. But this is America, have all the opinions you want! Doesn't mean that those who have some background in the subject aren't going to laugh at you. ( ok, with you )

Why would the study of how the world came into being, set strictly upon scientific studies. Why not religious studies. Why guess and theorized in science as to how it all came about, and not give a little of the guess work to the creationist's ideas. Science is supposed to be a study of concrete evidential facts. Yet coming up with a big bang theory is considered science. It is totally stupid. Wow, Amillia, you really need to get a little back ground into the nature of science. First of all, the big bang theory is based on some real serious evidence. Do you really want to hear it. What exactly happened that made it happen is still being evalutated, but the fact that the universe began with a big explosion of matter has very substantial factual evidence. If you want me to tell you about it I will, but only if you ask. Second, you are confusing the methods of science with the methods of religion. The reason scientists don't rely on religion to explain the origin of the universe is because science requires observable and repeatable FACTS. Religion only requires belief and is based upon conclusions formed that don't require a factual basis in order to be accepted. Scientists don't accept creationism because there is no factual basis for it---only religious proclamations or forgone conclusions.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving. Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from? I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps. If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense. That is the oldest objection to evolution in the book. It reveals a profound misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. Really you should just take a good biology course or read up on the subject. Just a brief explanation. Species do not have to change along with the branches of species that emerge off of them. Species can have common ancestors, as do we and the chimps and gorillas. It is not true that we are direct decendants of chimps or gorillas--we just had common ancesters. Our line changed more over time than did the Chimps and Gorillas. For example, the cockroach has remained the same for 300 million years, where many other insects have changed drastically since then. It all depends on the environmental pressures for survival that populations have encountered. To say that we couldn't have common ancestors with the Chimps is to ignore the obvious---we share 99% of our genes with them---how is there no biological relationship with them. Common ancestry is the only logical conclusion. On top of that, the fossil record has been found that shows this evolution quite nicely.

True, evolution is a theory. It's a widely accepted version of what heppened, but it is still a theory, as is Intelligent Design. I don't know that I believe in drastic evolution as in ape-to-man, but I believe that many species do evolve and adapt to a degree over time. Darwin got a lot of it right. You are right that Darwin got a lot of it right. You are wrong, however, that ID is a theory. It is a religious or philosphical tenent. The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution was a conclusion based on observed facts. The facts came FIRST. Darwin observed all kinds of plants and animals, studied their anatomical similarities and differences in places like South America and the Galapagos Islands. After gathering all his data together, he THEN came to the scientific conclusion we now call Organic Evolution. Intelligent Design is a conclusion, arrived at BEFORE any serious facts arose to support it. And non have yet. Theories, in science, are not just vacuous guesses, or religious dogmas, that start with a conclusion in search of supportive facts. A scientific theory is only a conclusion reached after considering ALL the facts in total. The problem with ID is that it started with its own conclusion, based on the need of some religious types to find something to replace "creationism" since it has been so soundly refuted. The problem is, ID doesn't do anything for the cause. It is just another attempt to circumvent evolution. It should also be pointed out that a BELIEF in a supreme creator is not precluded by accepting evolution as a solid theory. Science, and evoutionary theory, do not even address the existance of a supreme creator. Science requires that a subject be amendable to experimental verification or denial. Since the existance of such an entity is not verifible by experimentation science has NOTHING to say about it one way or the other. Let's keep the concept of scientific theories and religious beliefs separate.