[balrog666]

It is otherwise for the atheist. It is his faith that is at stake in this controversy, not ours. His faith requires that chance and natural law must be adequate to explain the facts of evolution.

While this entire article is so biased as to be practically unreadable to anyone with half a brain, it is this blind statement that annoys me most. To assume that non-believers in your particular faith are necessarily atheists is ludicrous at best. To assume that atheists must somehow justify their "faith" while you blindly seize upon your own is even more stupid. Need I go on?

[Exnihilo]

While this entire article is so biased as to be practically unreadable to anyone with half a brain, it is this blind statement that annoys me most.

It may annoy you, but it's true. Materialism *must* be true for the atheist. There is no other alternative. And, the article isn't biased. The author readily agrees that evolution is most likely a fact! If you can explain why this statement that annoys you is false, please do so. By the way, what "faith" of mine do you refer to? I'm a theist, nothing more and nothing less.

[Exnihilo]

To assume that non-believers in your particular faith are necessarily atheists is ludicrous at best.

This is not ludicrous. The faith he refers to is theism- a belief in God. What is a non-theist? An atheist! Duh! If you take the time to read anything at First Things, the first thing you'll notice is that they do not take sides between religions. They merely espouse a theistic philosophy.