It's not a matter of there being two sides. There are people who recognize the gaps in their information (mostly due to the lack of bones found from the era about 3 million years ago) - i.e. those of us who believe that evolution is a pretty good description of what has happened over hundreds of millions of years - and those who are struggling to reconcile their religious views with what we know to be reality.

It's not a two-sided debate. You might find two sides about specifics of evolution, such as why such-and-such a species developed a certain way. But creationists who think people who believe the facts of evolution are just being stubborn or placing too much belief in science are aggressively ignorant. This is not a matter of "middle ground" between two equal points of view, since they're only contradictory if you insist on taking the Bible literally instead of symbolically.

In other words, zrocks, you are defending ignorance. There's a lot we don't know, but that doesn't discount what we do know beyond any shadow of a doubt. I've said many times that you may be right that God designed evolution, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it exists, nor does it create another "side" to the debate. That's why I say the discussion has been framed by religious right kooks who want to make it 2-sided issue.

zrocks and others: ID was invented by creationists in order to create a "debate" where none existed. Within the scientific academic works, there is NO debate that evolution occurs, or that it is responsible for what we see today. The "debate" was manufactured in order to appeal to peoples' sense of fairness. Where there is no debate, one can create one by saying "Well, let's look at both sides of the argument and let the reader decide!" Well, simply put, there is no other side apart from raw creationism. ID is a political tool meant to reduce the influence of science by fabricating a "debate" where none exists.

Read the so-called "Wedge Document" , written by the Discovery Institute, one of the premier ID think-tanks in the US. It spells out their goals in plain view for all to see.

The fabricated debate is a clever tool for giving disproportionate face time to a small group of fanatics. Think about it, this can be done about anything: We all love the DA7. But what if one or two people believe that digital mixing boards cause cancer? Of course, this is a ludicrous belief, but by claiming that "both sides of the debate" need to be heard, this small group creates a controversy where there was none before. Putting ID on the same ground as evolution is completely ridiculous. They are entirely separate disciplines, and furthermore ID has, to date, made no predictions or hypotheses, nor has a single shred of evidence popped up supporting its cause. Attempting to frame this as a "debate" is just a trick, an attempt to fool people into thinking they are being fair when in fact they are falling for a ruse.

What are you some sort of creationist?

This is what I believe also. So where do we differ? Other than the fact that I have more tolerance for a differing view. An ignorant view in your opinion but I prefer to not get into name calling. I am much too sensitive for that.

I don't personally happen to believe that, as you well know. But I would never call someone who does believe it ignorant.

Moreover that's not what Intelligent Design people say. They say that since there's no smoking gun evidence for every evolutionary link that occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, evolution is wrong; species were designed by God, who *poof* made them appear on their own one day.

And of course anyone who knows there's absolutely no reason to believe that is accused of being intolerant and unwilling to find middle ground between two equally valid points of view.

Or the 6000-year-old earth nonsense, which one might say has been proven wrong. That's especially ignorant.

What Audiorigami says, in other words.

Crap, this went too far in the last couple days for me to catch up. Since everyone wants to conclude this thread, I'll just chime in and go back to hiding.

Yes, evolution exists - undeniably. The level at which it exists should've been what this thread centered on.

Each belief system has holes - Being a Chrisitian does NOT answer all the questions that a Christian may have for himself. He needs to search using all available tools - including science. A Christian does one thing that a naturalist doesn't however - admit his faith.

Does a naturalist have faith? If he stands on any fundamental unproven belief he does. Taking a position without all of the facts is faith. I'd argue that everyone here has a faith.

Just like Nick, if you show me without a doubt that evolution was the process used to bring us here typing on our computers, I would still get up and put my pants on in the morning. Evolution is not incompatible my faith. God is capable of creating in this manner.

Why don't I believe in evolution on a major scale? Because it is lacking something - A MECHANISM. Someone spell it out for me without hiding behind "Anything is possible with tons of time." No one has made a case for spontaneous generation and punctuated equilibrium (well, Audiorigami gave it a decent stab). These holes ARE the theory. I'm open to it - just give me a reasonable mechanism.

Why did we talk about the big bang and the origins of the universe when this topic was about evolution? Are they related? Kind of. Why did we talk about spiritual stuff? I guess that's kind of related to. Was this necessarily a discussion about evolution, or was it really about whether or not there is a God? Were you here to defend your faith?

Well, if you read Germee's first post, that was the context in which he started the thread.

Dorkus, about the mechanism: it seems to me that some things simply do what they do without anything controlling them. Why do plants move toward the light, for example? That's behavior or sorts, but they obviously don't have a brain. And how do marine animals like jellyfish that lack a brain know what to do with themselves?There's no CPU that controls them. They just have basic behaviors.

And I think a lot of the universe is like that.

Its funny (to me) that you can look at something and see it 180 degrees out of phase from the way I see it. I think a lot of the universe is like that as well. The evolution(?) of instinct and such just adds to the complexity and beauty of what we see. If evolution is true, then it is an amazing and (almost) perfect tool. It seems to have purpose and direction built into it, but of course it can't. Animals NEED instinct; plants NEED light. It's incredible that they would develop these right when they were needed. Almost like they were designed.

Why is that 180 degrees out of phase with what I said?