True there isn't anything that makes one "fitter" than anyone else. I'm not saying that this is what I believe, but it is about as close as an example as one can get without going too far into PC statements.

If you have 100 men, 50 are highly capible, intellegent, healthy, able to make wise decision for the future, and all that jazz. The other 50 are...let us say Al Bundy, the far end of the spectrum. If the laws of evolution applied to humans, the lower 50 would produce less kids than the upper 50, to allow the "more fit for the enviroment" to succede genetically. But that is not true, the lower 50 usually have more children than the upper 50. Genes get mixed like crazy, but the "poorly working" genes don't get tossed out by failure and the "most fit" genes don't succede. So the process of evolution can't take hold.

It might be useful to know that roughyl 5% of scientists support creationism, and roughly 45% support ID. This is up from about fifteen years ago when the combined total of ID and Creation supporters was roughly 5%. Evolution is a good theory, but it just doesn't hold up as anything more than a theory.

You did not even attempt to give a reference, and that’s useless to do if your using statistics.

I saw that study; I'm fairly certain the 45% group supported theistic evolution, not ID... huge difference. Many scientists don't see Intelligent Design as real science. The majority (55%) of polled scientists believed in naturalistic evolution.