well, i'm certainly not a creationist. i think its an interesting theory, and one that doesnt necessarily need to be divorced from evolution, since evolution could be directed by a creative force. BUT, and here's the rub, why is it some people insist on preaching evolution or creationism as a knowable fact? i mean, unless one was there to witness creation, there can be no proof of its legitemacy. teleological arguments dont work. ontological arguments dont work. Or in the case of evolution, we have witnessed one kind of evolition (micro-evolution, where a bird developes a different beak design to survive different situations.) but a micro-evolved darwinian finch is still a FINCH. it is not a new species. and thats the problem. we have never witnessed a case of macro evolution where some living sludge beings become three legged hover-beasts or what-ever. there is no way, especially with the lack of the "missing link" to tie these former species to current ones in a causal way. just because there are genetic similarities , there is no logical reason to make the leap to believing macro-evolution. its a logical leap. a leap of faith!! i guess its good to know even in our scientific age, scientifically minded people are still capable of leaps of faith, and of religiously defending (zealously i might add) unknowable, currently unprovable (un dis-provable too) theories of why, when ,how, and for what . ;)