I have already stated that my vote is for AND.

Sorry to perpetuate the unwanted drift, but I really can't let the following pass unanswered.

""Uh, Don, find me a scientist that would call something a theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence. In order for a theory to be proved wrong it has to rise to the level of being a theory in the first place""

There is exactly the same amount of evidence FOR as there is AGAINST.

In a universe which tends toward entropy, the degree of order which surrounds us is sufficiently curious to validate the concept of a guiding hand, and therefore I would claim that my suspicion that there MAY be a God constitutes a viable scientific "theory", until such time as SCIENCE is able to PROVE an alternative.

That, we are constantly told by self proclaimed (sometimes genuine, sometimes far from it) scientists, is the way science works. Unless of course the results conflict with their desired outcome.

Don T.