On one level it makes sense to say that humans and all life for that matter are just a series of complex chemical reactions that are moving along in response to "the laws of nature", physical, chemical and environmental stimuli. Since we all share a significant portion of DNA, one could make the arguement that we in the animal kingdom are all related and some way evolved from one another as evidenced in the similarity of our biological make up. Another way to look at it could be that the reason that we are so similar to the other parts of the animal kingdom is that given the environment we all live in, the chemical processes that make up our species are the only ones that can exist. So are we genetically similar because we came from each other through evolution or are we similar because we are all made up of the only combinations of cells and proteins and chemical reactions that are possible given this particular environment? I think that both theories are incomplete at best and to pass judgement with out at least considering all the possibilities is irresponsible and narrow minded of anyone. I really don't see how they have come to be mutually exclusive in so many peoples' eyes. Exploring the theory of evolution does nothing to refute the existence of God. If anything it bolsters the argument. And divinity doesn't rule out the possibility of Evolution. If God can create all the creatures in the heavans and the earth is not at all possible that he could create animals capable of Evolution?
I agree completely. But evolution has the most physical evidence behind it while ID has very little. I'm not against god, I'm against ID as science.