Dear gomaaa,
There are two kinds of evolution, theistic and atheistic. Atheistic, the type most often found on these threads, is anti-God. It has materialist presuppositions which are not rational but are necessary to justify a worldview. Theistic evolution borrows heavily from atheistic evolution and carries with it not only most of the problems of atheistic evolution but adds a few new ones as well.
I find it surprising that the atheistic evolutionists and the theistic evos team up against the young-earthers when theistic evos rely on something outside of this universe which the atheistic evos cannot abide.
Thanks for your reply!
By your criteria, I would categorize myself on the atheistic side of things, but that doesn't mean I would completely discount the theistic side out of hand. Scientists who believe in God do not discount any of the evidence at hand. They find ways to reconcile their faith and the evidence and explanations they are presented with. So the two sides as you describe them are not so opposed as you might think. My opposition to creationism is not based on religion or the absence of religion. It has to do with the pseudo-scientific arguments that are too often offered.
I just don't like the way creation scientists treat a religious question in scientific terms. Religion and Science ask fundamentally different questions. One doesn't really 'believe' in Evolution anyway. It's a scientific theory, not a religious worldview or ideology. As such it doesn't make any sense to criticize evolution on religious grounds or Christianity on scientific grounds. I get equally annoyed with those who use evolution as 'proof' of the non-existence of God.