Where does Matthew809 state that the intelligence doing the design is a god? Indeed, he seems to be clearly saying that he is not talking about gods, not once, but at least twice: Post#9 Post#14 I am not well versed in logical fallacies, but you seem to be using what people call a strawman argument. Yes? Are you sure? I am not a scientist, but an interested amateur. I thought, lying at the core of good science was to be questioning. If the current theories of science are not questioned then they become dogma. I understand that the questioning need be done by someone intimately familiar with the theory being questioned, but your statement is an absolute. You did not say, "someone with little knowledge of the theory of evolution who doubts it has automatically identified himself as antiscience", you said "anyone who doubts it........." I don't want to come across as aggressive, but your attack on Matthew's position seems to contain at least these two logical inconsistencies. That just seems a wrong approach to dismissing his argument. And, on a lighter note, while genetics underpins much of evolutionary theory today Darwin was ignorant of it, but did rely heavily on comparative anatomy, something that remains important today. And biogeography was also crucial, though perhaps more for Wallace than Darwin.