[DC Bound]

By your logic, if an evolutionist admitted he felt liberated in life because evolution allowed him to not have to worry about God, then his science supporting evolution would be questionable.

Your challenge to produce a generally accepted scientific theory that has an religious view surrounding it is evolution in two ways.

First, critics allege evolutionism is itself a religion (and if you study what makes a belief set a religion, it fits just as well as American Civil Religion and any number of other non-theistic religions.)

Second, in that evolution is surrounded by religion due to the exact scenario I started this post with. You have no doubt come across people who are athiests who support their atheism by their belief in evolution, which makes God unnecessary. Does their atheism disqualify them from being evolutionists? Does it alone make their claims invalid? Obviously not. It is up to the ID side to prove them wrong. And it is up to your side to prove ID wrong.

[Right Wing Professor]

First, critics allege evolutionism is itself a religion

That's stupid. 'Evolutionism' lacks ritual, moral precepts, an organization...one might as well claim physics is a religion.

[Tench_Coxe]

"By your logic, if an evolutionist admitted he felt liberated in life because evolution allowed him to not have to worry about God, then his science supporting evolution would be questionable."

Interesting enough, I pulled this from the talk.origins site. While there is a rebuttal on the page St. Dawkins, it doesn't actually address the implications, nor the significance behind St. Dawkin's statement. This fact betrays an intellectual dishonesty:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6)..

Now, this statement can be vociferously denied, or hand waved at, but since this was made by the person holding the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, one must bring into question the motivations seen in the recent fandango.
What is at the heart of the matter is that a local school district is being sued in Federal court, all polemics about 'destroying science' or 'ape worship' aside. The real danger here is IMHO a parallel to what happened in Russia, regarding Lysenkoism--a questionable science at the time that was co-opted by the State to promulgate a political philosophy. After all, if State policies can be backed by a consensus of scientists, who can argue? ( not to mention, the purging of other scientists who argued against. Of course, if one's life is threatened, it is pretty easy to join the 'consensus' ). This event resulted in killing millions of people through famine.