The problem is that the common usage of the terms "evoluion" and "Darwinism" are not confined to science. The terms have expanded to include the philisophical and even the theistic. For example, "Darwinism" can mean evolution by natural selection, sometimes mean what scientists call the "synthetic theory of evolution" (the union of genetic theory with natural selection theory), sometimes mean gradual evolution, and sometimes "Darwinism" means evolution itself. Sometimes "evolution" is used as a purely scientific idea, and other times it is confused with evolutionism, a naturalistic ideology that excludes the possibility of divine intervention. Also, even within the science of evolution there is a myriad of complexity and dissparate levels of proof (e.g.,inter and intra species evolution, etc.).
The truth is the neither the Intelligent Design pundits nor the "Evolutionists" are arguing science. It is, at its core, a philisophical debate.
Yes i think so too. It is a religion vs atheists debate.
Evolution and Creationism have become the flagships of atheists and theists and are currently shooting mud at each other. They cant sink eachother cause they are only representations of far deeper philosophy's.
Im religious but have no issue with evolution.
Why would I, I believe in God so i already believe everything is part of God. Including evolution.
"The truth is the neither the Intelligent Design pundits nor the "Evolutionists" are arguing science. It is, at its core, a philisophical debate."
Correct. I note also that scientists are notoriously poor at doing philosophy...or, rather, they are willing do to very poor philosophy and not even know it. at least the ID guys have credentials in philosophy which allows them to participate in a debate which is, as you note, really philosophical.