[Dimensio]

Well, aren't we haughty!

You're the one proclaiming sufficient knowledge to discredit evolution yet demonstrating fundamental ignorance.

Science attempts to explain a lot of things, the origin of the universe being one of them.

Yes, but evolution is not part of the explanation of the origin of the universe.

Evolution is part of the current dogma of science and should be exposed for whatever deficiencies it contains.

Such as not providing an explanation for events outside of its scope? You've got a funny idea of what constitutes a "deficiency".

Intelligent Design was accepted as a plausible explaination until Darwin confused all the Protestants and fundamentalists out there.

Oh, please. Intelligent Design was not a "scientific" explanation before Darwin wrote his book, and you're only further exposing your ignorance with every claim.

If you are not interested in how and why you are here you are a very sad excuse for a scientist.

Who said that I wasn't? I'm just correctly pointing out that evolution has a specific, limited scope and you are arguing against it based upon things outside of its scope.

To claim that God has no place in the discussion is to admit your complacency with your ignorance.

Why should we suddenly assume, ex-nhilo, your "God" in a scientific discussion? Why should we invent a specific entity, and no other entities?

Science doesn't work that way. Your problem is not with me, but with the scientific method and rational thought in general.

[RichardMoore]

Let's take oe thing at a time. If, as you say, evolution does not deal wth the origin of the universe then why not teach Intelligent Design long with Evlution?