A new poll of medical doctors suggests that a significant minority (34%) support intelligent design over evolution. This alone is enough to show that there is a lively debate over the adequacy of Neo-Darwinism to explain intricate structures like the human body.

However, if one looks past the press release at the details of the poll itself, one finds that actually a majority of doctors favor intelligent design over Neo-Darwinism. Questioned about the origin and development of human beings, only 38% agreed with the Darwinian story that "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement--no divinity played any role." In contrast, 42% said that "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." That scenario involves intelligent design and, thus, contradicts the Neo-Darwinian account. Another 18% of doctors said "God created humans exactly as they appear now." Thus, 60% of doctors take an ID position.

The original question pitting "evolution" against "intelligent design" was confused. The two aren't necessarily in opposition. Most design theorists in biology, for instance, agree that microevolution has played a significant role in the history of life. Others consider common descent a strong possibility. They merely argue that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for various things like the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian eye, or the Cambrian explosion of animal forms some 530 million years ago.