[js1138]

Anyone that supports a balanced look at Darwinist theories does not necessarily support a religious answer just like one does not need to have any religious pedigree to be against abortion.

You are not correct, sir, and the analogy is utterly flawed.

Abortion is a religious and political issue. The findings of science are neither. There is no controversy in science about any of the elements of evolution that trouble the religious. There is no controversy about the age of the earth. There is no controversy about common descent. There is no controversy about the general interpretation of the fossil record or the geologic column. There is no controversy about the interpretation of ERVs.

The controversies that do exist in biology have no impact on these key items.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is no controversy . . .

Is that you, Baghdad Bob?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Yes, there is debate about the points. That is why there is discussion. The mindset of those devoted to Darwinism is the same.

Most people accept Darwinism and just shrug off the idea of intelligent design. They may not readily accept ID because of the pervasiveness of the former idea, but they don't get angry when ID is brought up. I've heard them say things like "That's interesting.." or "hm, I never thought of that..."

This is not the case with devotees to Darwin. They are vehemently opposed to anyone pointing out flaws or offering the alternative point of view, almost to the point of being rabid.

No matter. None of them can touch me.