[MissAmericanPie]

I'm saying that the "facts" that Science know as "facts", points as much, or more, to Intelligent Design than Evolution. That Science chooses to proffer a convoluted, and silly looking when put on film, theory. Is the problem.

[atlaw]

I'm saying that the "facts" that Science know as "facts", points as much, or more, to Intelligent Design than Evolution.

Setting aside meaningless generalities, what specific "facts" are you talking about? A list of, say, ten such "facts" would be nice.

[ToryHeartland]

a convoluted, and silly looking when put on film, theory

Are you really sure that "silly-looking when put on film" is a particularly good yardstick? That rather sounds like the Michael Moore standard of judgement....

[b_sharp]

"'m saying that the "facts" that Science know as "facts", points as much, or more, to Intelligent Design than Evolution. That Science chooses to proffer a convoluted, and silly looking when put on film, theory. Is the problem."

And what I am saying is the 'facts' you believe support ID over evolution do so because you 1) Have a very poor understanding of the SToE. 2) You have a limited understanding of ID. 3) In your misunderstanding, ID fits in better with your personal belief system.