Replies

You can "interpret" things to mean whatever you want. Young-earthers interpret shellfish fossils found on mountaintops to be evidence of Noah's flood. While it's fine you have another point of view, it's insuffient from a scientific standpoint to merely claim the evidence supports your view. You must demonstate how the pervailing view is wrong (such as finding a fossil of an angiosperm in soil dated to the Triassic) and you must also demonstrate how your hypothesis better describes the evidence. The Intelligent Design Hypothesis does neither of these things. It is a reactionary movement that merely stands opposed to modern synthesis theory of evolution. The modern synthesis theroy of evolution combines Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritence, and modern theories of molecular biology that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule in the 1950s by Watson, Crick, Wilkins and others. The Intelligent Design Hypothesis, on the other hand, is a response by some people whose sensibilities are offended by modern biological evolution, and who seek to dress up creationism in pseudo-scientific language. The fact is that there are plenty of devout people working in the life sciences who understand what the theory of evolution means and have no internal conflict with their personal religious faith, whether that faith be Catholic, Protestant, Judaism, Hinduism or what-have-you.