[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem with Creationism vs. evolution is that the Creationist side, while basing their entire system of belief on "faith" ie: accepting something that you have never seen, demand proof that would shake their faith on the unknown in order to accept what the other side believes.

Turned on its head, the creationist argument of "what has evolved these past few centuries?", could be turned into "what has God created these past few thousands of years?"

[Thatcherite]

Turned on its head, the creationist argument of "what has evolved these past few centuries?", could be turned into "what has God created these past few thousands of years?"

Well, millions of species, apparently, since only a few-thousand at the most absurdly optimistic stretch could have been on the ark, and there are now 20+million species. The standard creationist mantra is that speciation is impossible so God must have been hard at work since the disembARKation. (stand by for some blather about "adaption within kinds not being macroevolution")

[13Sisters76]

Not so- those who live their faith would have no problem accepting evolution. There is no problem regarding evolution as a tool of the Creator.
What we DO object to are the REASONS for ejecting ID from the public debate- and keep in mind, some scientists and mathematicians DO accept the idea of ID withOUT the concept of God- is to denigrate people of faith and ANY idea of something greater than man.
It is NOT our side that wants to do away with evolution, but rather, THEIR side which would do so to ID.
This is anti-intellectual, unreasonable and anti-free speech....a distinctly left-wing tactic. Wouldn't you agree?