Does "Intelligent Design" trump Evolution this time?

Now and then I come across things that make me wonder how Evolution/Natural Selection can explain something like (CLICK)this story where an extinct animal is resurrected from extinction by - yes - intelligent design. In this case - by man.

"(Newser) – Scientists have used frozen skin samples from a Spanish ibex to create the first clone of an extinct species, reports the Telegraph. The ibex, a wild mountain goat native to the Pyrenees, died out in 2000. Scientists were able to extract DNA from preserved cells and implant it in the egg of a domestic goat, using a technique known as nuclear transfer."

While alive, doesn't this now-made-non-extinct (via human design) ibex present a contradiction to the process of natural selection? Now wait - it was already extinct so "out of the gene pool" - removing it from the discussion of the Theory of Evolution -or do I have this wrong? The extinct Ibex is condemned to history by natural selection - then all of the sudden we have a live one-thanks to the intelligent design of human scientists.

Please consider (CLICK) this article by Garcia regarding Darwin. The scientist/author of linked article does a fine job discussing history, facts, and typical sticking points in the ongoing discussion about how the cosmos and its inhabitants came about.

It seems to come down to science vs. religion. Let me say up front I consider myself a spiritual person, not religious - but rely on science for answers. I am not a religion-basher. But I acknowledge fair criticism toward religion regarding geo-political conflict. I prefer to differentiate spirituality and religion.

Can we remain faithful to scientific rigor while acknowledging that human needs demand adjoining rooms for both science and spirituality? Remember that simply by asking "WHY?" the asker can always get the last word. Plato wrote that the limits of science lie within the mind because first principles, or the laws we call facts, are based only upon the impressions they leave in our mind. So science still requires human interpretation, which relies on our intuition, which means it is subject to any error or bias introduced by intuition. Is it possible that science isn't the be-all end-all of everything? Can we both retain our sense of wonder and our dignity while applying our scientific toolbox?

Isn't woman's (and man's) imagination ( pure fantasyland ) the origin of all human output - including science?

Is the return from extinction of the Ibex better explained by "intelligent design" rather than evolution?
------------------
UPDATE Feb 17, 2009 Babu G. Ranganathan
UPDATE APR 13, 2009 Another article to ponder
UPDATE VIDEO NOVEMBER 24, 2009