hmmm, i thought i'd throw in my two cents' worth on randomness... since it seems it plays a part in the intelligent design theory.

what is random for one person is not necessarily so for another. i came to this conclusion with my mythical physics teacher in discussing entropy. hmmm... take for instance the following: askdj fgf aa afsdsasf afsasdasd. now, that might appear random. in fact, i just punched some letters on the keyboard. however, there is no proof that a language could not exist in which that phrase does not make sense. in fact, there could very well be a language in which that collection of letters expresses the meaning of life. random for us, but not for everybody. not necessarily.

secondly, consider a neat, orderly row of desks. it all looks pretty non-random, no? consider now you're an ant looking at this jungle of desks from below. somewhere the order is lost. if we, subjectively, are responsible for determining what's random and what's not, we can't say that randomness doesn't exist, anymore than we can say that nobody likes rainbows.

and i don't see why any higher power had to make things like they are. if you put enough monkeys in a room and let them hit keys long enough, you'll get the complete works of shakespeare, moliere, dante and cervantes in english, french, italian and spanish. if the universe has been around forever, and what we see now as reality is possible (i don't think anybody wants to deny the possibility of our current reality :p not in this thread, anyway...) then it was bound to happen eventually. that's simple probability (actually, really confusing probability at the moment :p)

on another note, i think stygian is right to question whether science has any place intruding on the origin of our species, or the world for that matter. or the universe. if we observe evolution in other species, that's good. if we can track our own evolution starting now, even better. if we can look at clues, nay, proof from the past and infer the process of human evolution, it is excellent. the problem is that, as it stands, i don't know of any compelling empirical proof to back it up with. the theory is really just a call to arms, to whet scientists' appetites to search for a way of explaining it so the process of evolution can be turned in our favor. in that sense, evolution is a very worthy venture.

my final verdict? religion offers truth but no proof, whereas science offers proof but no truth. lol. kinda ironic.