Of course, you're completely wrong. For example, scientists have successfully added jellyfish genes to monkey DNA. Natural Selection does not explain such a thing -- nor should it, since it is a true case of Intelligent Design.
And in this example lies the problem with a Theory of Evolution that explicitly rules out the possibility of intercession by intelligent agents. A thought experiment will show you why. Suppose that these monkeys escape into the wild -- on an island, say -- and over the next 1000 years form a large population. A scientist finds the population, and discovers this special "glow in the dark" gene. You and I know that this gene was explicitly a product of human intervention, but I suspect that our future scientist would not be able to test for human influence in the monkey gene. Would it therefore be "scientific" for the scientist to think up an alternative, purely "natural" explanation? Would it be "unscientific" for him to suggest that somebody placed the gene into the monkey DNA?
> And in this example lies the problem with a Theory of Evolution that explicitly rules out the possibility of intercession by intelligent agents.
In no way does evolutionary theory deny the possibility of intentional genetic tampering. It does, however, provide a straightforward way to explain biodiversity without the need for falling back on conspiracy theories.
Erich von Daniken theory "we were created by aliens" should be taught as part of "Intelligent design"