[Coyoteman]

...as science relies on the scientific method, while acceptance of beliefs without any supporting data — and in spite of immense amounts of contrary date — is the exact opposite of science.

Like evolution?

Sorry, that happens not to be the case.

I can see where folks of certain religious persuasions can't abide by the theory of evolution, but those religious beliefs by themselves do not negate either science, or the theory of evolution.

I studied evolution about half time during six years of grad school. That was some years ago, but I have seen the fossil man/osteological evidence supporting the theory of evolution in some detail. Since then the field of genetics has independently added a huge amount of support for the theory.

If religious belief, such as creation "science" or ID, seeks to overturn the scientific theory of evolution, they need to provide scientific evidence. Religious belief is not sufficient (hey, there's a tag line in there!)

[irishtenor]

If evolution is a theory (your word), when will it becoe fact? I have yet to see evidence of any animal, insect, whatever, turning into another kind of animal, insect, whatever. You would think that with all the millions of kind of “things” in the world, at least one would be a half/half type thing. Is there any evidence of this that I do not know about?

[MarkBsnr]

If we consider evolution as the spontaneous arising of one species from another, this has already been shown in detail in certain plants and viruses in which new has arisen from the old.

If we consider the whole mechanism as proposed from Big Bang through to today, there are as many hypotheses as theories, with a lesser number of facts.