it frustrates me that creationists have taken the respectable idea of there being something divine about the way nature inherently works, slapped thinly-veiled label on it, and retooled it as a way of getting their very specific religious beliefs reconsidered. back in my day it was called "deism" and/or "pantheism" and it didn't come with a KJV bible in tow. >:/
@ lily flower - i do not think it was your intention, but your post came off as rather artificial
circular reasoning, if you will... it just makes it hard to trust... start at one premise, decide to stray, and based off one experience return to your initial premise... it just does not seem very... well, scientific?
i think my general problem with discarding evolution is this:
even the specifics of gravitation itself are still being debated within the scientific community, as are the details of relativity... there are still unsolved questions regarding the overlap of the four fundamental interactive forces as well as regarding general relativity and quantum mechanics, and yet those are two theories that most people accept unquestioningly. if you choose to reject evolution on the grounds of it not totally being worked out yet, that's fair - i am no expert myself - but then it also only seems logical to question the nature of other scientific principles that are not fully explained as well... might as well start refraining from using most technology, etc...
and then my problem with ID being this:
to all accounts i am really a believer in "intelligent design" if we are defining it simply as nature driven by a greater force, but i would never self-identify with Intelligent Design. it's really quite blatantly creationist, just a foot in the door.