That's a laughable position to take. For intelligent design to even have any credible merit, it would require empirical, sufficient evidence of a designer playing a hand. And guess what? There's no evidence of a designer at all. Then we'll enter into an infinite regression and philosophical debate, in which deviates from science. Everything else is based on broken numbers and imaginative data by a group of hustlers. And people of your limited knowledge on science feed into that garbage. There are rational means to hold moderate positions, as long as they are of credible means, but under circumstances like this? That's a piss poor position. Again, perhaps you need to observe the overview of the whole argument. Basically, whatever you can trudge up to be against it, the link provided will give you a counterargument from people who actually know what they are talking about.
"Religions do a useful thing: they narrow God to the limits of man. Philosophy replies by doing a necessary thing: it elevates man to the plane of God". Victor Hugo
That's not what I'm implying kiddo. You're completely okay to believe in a higher power, even though the concept is purely based on absurdities. Many scientists identify themselves as theist, deist, atheist or agnostic. However, they're not irrational to interject their faith into real world situations. Also, what's even much more absurd is when people want to argue against evolution, they don't have a lick of understanding of it from the get go. They make misconceptions, only to make a fool of themselves in the end.
@ Nerdy Girl what is the purpose of your responses ? I'm trying to figure out if you agree with fluoride being unhealthy or if your patronizing me.
From what I've seen on other threads, you and logic don't get on well. Also, don't take yourself or the anonymous online forum so seriously....