The intelligent design theory is always looked down upon because it is viewed as "religion" or believing that God created the universe, and Darwinism is always viewed as "atheism" or that there is no God. Has there ever been a sound argument that has made this so? The answer is no. The view that there is an intelligent designer has always implied that you have to be religious. Why is it wrong to believe that some things in science can't be proven by science? You can't escape the complexity of living organisms and the earth and the evidence that shows repeatedly that there is no explanation for how certain things are. I consider myself a believer in an intelligent design of the universe, but I believe in many aspects of the evolution theory. For example, Darwinism includes adaption, which basically says that all species adapt to their environment. This is clearly proven by numerous evidences. On contrary, some Darwinist would say that the first cell of life came from simple chemicals that replicated using simple means and then natural selection took over. Natural selection, Darwinist admit, that replication requires a self replicating organism. For that to work there must be cell division, in which there must be the presence of DNA, but where did DNA and the folding of proteins come from? That's the heart of the matter, DNA, the building blocks of life. Does my observing that evidence and disagreeing wrong? Does someone's believing that an intelligent designer started life wrong in light of that evidence and many of the faults of others? I also think that a Darwinist can and should respect the idea that there could have been an intelligent designer, even though they don't believe it. I believe people that believe in creationism should respect Darwinism and respect science enough to listen to everyone's claims and not shut them out with the bible.