There is a common problem among most people involved in this debate, which has been going on for years and years, and probably will continue to go on for the rest of time. Basically, IDers have a religion that is built upon faith in an unseen God. Evolutionists build their ideas around a philosophy that what we see today can give us adequate reason to interpret what happened yesterday. However, both of these parties has a critical flaw in that so often they believe that their belief system and worldview can be proved completely based on absolute truths that are undeniable to everyone. There is a lot of evidence seen in various fossils that have been discovered in the world that points to a variation in species that oftentimes comes very close to appearing as if creatures evolved over time. Evolutionists take this and say that it shows that species absolutely did evolve over time. Creationists take this same evidence and say that it is not enough to claim that it has happened for sure based on lack of intermediates between species. They also claim that there are things we see today that are too complex to be dissolved piece-by-piece and still function in some way that would be consisten with Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory. However, both of these parties really are taking facts that we see and making interpretations that go beyond what the facts actually can definitively prove. The theory of evolution is a great one, and to come up with that theory was a matter of intelligence on the part of Charles Darwin, however, because of the simple reality that it cannot be recreated in a test lab means that it cannot ever be "proved" in the strictest sense of the word. People who believe that God created the earth and everything that is in it "as-is" cannot prove that ideology either. Both parties are so convinced of their points that they miss the reality that the nature of the theory of Evolution itself makes it really unprovable from a grand and global scale because there would have to be a physical witness of the entire process the whole time. It has been said that theories in science cannot ever be proven but can only be disproven, and for people to make claims that something can be proven that is not observable shows that they have filled in transitions in their own minds that have not been observed in reality.
My main point is that people who hold to ID ascribe their belief system on faith that there is a God and that the things that He created things the way they are to a large extent with some minor variations along the way. People who hold to Evolution ascribe their belief system on faith in their interpretations of the facts that they've seen. Both systems are built on faith because neither can ever prove based on observations how what we see today came to pass. It is very important that whenever these ideas are taught, that they are taught with the understanding that they have not and cannot be proven.
It's interesting how so many people label this a battle between science and religion. People are trying to fight this war against the "opposing" party without recognizing a rather interesting reality. The origin of life, or the origin of stuff in general, has nothing to do with science. Science is an observable, experimental, and recreatable practice. To believe in either evolution or creation is to hold to a philosophy, not any kind of scientific theory. Neither evolution or creation (or the politically correct term "Intelligent Design") can be proved empirically. You cannot compare them by saying one is science and the other is religion because at their very core, they are both basic belief systems about the origins of all that we know that exists. They are actually philosophies about our world's origin, both of which use facts that we observe in our world as evidence for their truth. To believe one or the other is fundamentally a belief and not a provable fact.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a common problem among most people involved in this debate, which has been going on for years and years, and probably will continue to go on for the rest of time. Basically, IDers have a religion that is built upon faith in an unseen God. Evolutionists build their ideas around a philosophy that what we see today can give us adequate reason to interpret what happened yesterday. However, both of these parties has a critical flaw in that so often they believe that their belief system and worldview can be proved completely based on absolute truths that are undeniable to everyone. There is a lot of evidence seen in various fossils that have been discovered in the world that points to a variation in species that oftentimes comes very close to appearing as if creatures evolved over time. Evolutionists take this and say that it shows that species absolutely did evolve over time. Creationists take this same evidence and say that it is not enough to claim that it has happened for sure based on lack of intermediates between species. They also claim that there are things we see today that are too complex to be dissolved piece-by-piece and still function in some way that would be consisten with Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory. However, both of these parties really are taking facts that we see and making interpretations that go beyond what the facts actually can definitively prove. The theory of evolution is a great one, and to come up with that theory was a matter of intelligence on the part of Charles Darwin, however, because of the simple reality that it cannot be recreated in a test lab means that it cannot ever be "proved" in the strictest sense of the word. People who believe that God created the earth and everything that is in it "as-is" cannot prove that ideology either. Both parties are so convinced of their points that they miss the reality that the nature of the theory of Evolution itself makes it really unprovable from a grand and global scale because there would have to be a physical witness of the entire process the whole time. It has been said that theories in science cannot ever be proven but can only be disproven, and for people to make claims that something can be proven that is not observable shows that they have filled in transitions in their own minds that have not been observed in reality. My main point is that people who hold to ID ascribe their belief system on faith that there is a God and that the things that He created things the way they are to a large extent with some minor variations along the way. People who hold to Evolution ascribe their belief system on faith in their interpretations of the facts that they've seen. Both systems are built on faith because neither can ever prove based on observations how what we see today came to pass. It is very important that whenever these ideas are taught, that they are taught with the understanding that they have not and cannot be proven.
It's interesting how so many people label this a battle between science and religion. People are trying to fight this war against the "opposing" party without recognizing a rather interesting reality. The origin of life, or the origin of stuff in general, has nothing to do with science. Science is an observable, experimental, and recreatable practice. To believe in either evolution or creation is to hold to a philosophy, not any kind of scientific theory. Neither evolution or creation (or the politically correct term "Intelligent Design") can be proved empirically. You cannot compare them by saying one is science and the other is religion because at their very core, they are both basic belief systems about the origins of all that we know that exists. They are actually philosophies about our world's origin, both of which use facts that we observe in our world as evidence for their truth. To believe one or the other is fundamentally a belief and not a provable fact.