Intelligent Design vs Darwinism - whats your two cents?

I beleive that either possibility exsists since there isnt sfficient evidence for either or

Bull! There's a ton of evidence for evolution, and every claim for intelligent design has been shot down.

First, we need to get our definitions right. I'm assuming this is a matter of science, so I'm going to give the scientific definitions of the theory and hypothesis — there are religious definitions of intelligent design, but since you're pitting this as an "either or" statement, it stands to reason that we're talking about the scientific inquiry.
Biological Evolution by Natural Selection: the change in allele frequencies through inherited traits.
Intelligent Design: EbNS, except there are certain places where natural selection is inadequate in being able to produce various features we see in biology, so an undescribed entity or entities must have changed the genetic code at one or more points during the evolutionary process.

Now, intelligent design proponents have not been able to come up with a single example where natural selection fails, so their hypothesis has not been justified. This was culminated in the Dover trial where, on stand, the claims for features proposed as needing intelligence design were shown to be claims out of ignorance — the classic example is the claim that the immune system could not evolve, and the prosecution lawyer began stacking peer-reviewed literature and text books that explain this process, and the defence expert witness admitted to not having read any of it, solidifying that that claim had been made out of ignorance. And that's what I normally see in intelligent design scientific claims: ignorance.

so what is the explanation for the creation of life? we all evolved from a singled cell organism?

And here is where the intelligent design proponents — and the creationists before them — have skewed terms: evolution says nothing about the start of life. "Abiogenesis" is the term for the beginning of life, and Darwin's natural selection says nothing about said process. And we all did evolve from (a) single-celled organism(s).

But what created the single celled organism?

No. I'm going to be strict about these definitions because people need to know the difference. The thread is about evolution vs. intelligent design, so the beginning of life has nothing to do with our discussion. Confusing evolution and abiogenesis is common, but assuming they're both the same because they're in the field of biology is like going to Strat for a broken bone because he's in medicine.

So why can't you have intelligent design and evolution?

Because intelligent design is kind of an evolution+ type of thing. Evolution states that natural selection is sufficient for all instances of biological variability. Intelligent design says that evolution is good for the majority, but there are instances where natural selection is insufficient; hence, a designer must be the answer — I'll not, yet, get into the philosophical problems of this line of reasoning. Suffices to say that the two are at odds with each other, and there is no way to rectify them (in a scientific sense).

Is it ok to say that there is a possibility of a creator but he did not intelligently design everything and left everything to chance?

Then you would be an evolutionist. Again, intelligent design means that there is something that interrupts natural selection. And since evolution says nothing of the start of life, one can believe life started however one wants.

so evolution doesnt exclude the possibility of a diety?

Depends on what you think a deity did. If you are Deist, and think a god created the universe, then let it go without any intervention after that, then evolution is not at odds with that deity; if you believe Genesis happened in a literal sense, then evolution does conflict with that version of a deity. Essentially, as long as a proposed deity has not intervened in the evolutionary process, evolution is apathetic to the existence of a deity; however, if a deity is said to augment natural selection or have created complex life through supernatural means, then evolution is at odds with it.

Also, I'd like to point out that in the definition, the designer doesn't even need to be a deity; it can be extra-terrestrials, time-travellers (a nice little time-loop would be in play), inter-dimensional travellers, and what name you. Everyone simply assumes that the designer must be a deity — ever so conveniently their preferred deity as well — but this need not be the case. If you'd like, I can go into the philosophical problems of proposing a nondescript entity as the solution to a scientific question, but it seems I may have answered what you were looking for anyway.

Yeah it really makes sense now. I had the view that evolution had excluded the possibilty of a creator. But the way you explain it makes more sense to me. thx