And to say faith is immune to logic is to deny my own, and many others’, departure from faith due to exposure to logic.”

Well…
Your point is certainly taken. I try not to be pessimistic – I just tend to see how ID and Creationist true-believers generally avoid logic at all costs on the internet. :)

That said, I think it’s a good effort regardless. Keep it up. (that’s what she said! or uh… that’s what HE said!!)

((sorry, not enough coffee yet this morning))

…the good Reverend…

Thanks! :-D

And back to the subject of ID vs. Evolution, the entire idea of ID vs. Evolution demonstrates that it’s just repackaged creationism. As mentioned earlier by the good Reverend, design does not necessarily preclude evolution or vice versa, only abiogenesis but that’s another debate. The universe could have been created in a primitive state and then evolved into the more modern one. For ID to automatically be opposed to evolution it would have to *gasp* follow a specific ideal of design that does preclude evolution like say…the Christian version of creation. Additionally, ID doesn’t try to prove itself. It tries to prove evolution wrong and then claims that if evolution is wrong, this must be right. It’s nothing but an example of a false dilemma and the creationists trying to sneak their ideas into school in a more socially acceptable format.

The main “evidence” for ID is that life as we know is too complex to have possibly evolved. It is claimed that the possibility is just too unlikely. I have yet, however, to encounter a proponent of ID who has considered previously considered this: There could be untold numbers of possibilities for the way life evolved. The slightest difference could have led to the planet’s population looking nothing like it does today. When you start thinking that life didn’t have a foregone conclusion for a way it absolutely had to turn out and that there are “untoldillions” of possibilities, it doesn’t seem so unlikely. The chances for our evolved life still has the same incredibly minute statistics, but the chances for evolved life in general suddenly becomes a whole lot more feasible.

And to say faith is immune to logic is to deny my own, and many others’, departure from faith due to exposure to logic.

In all seriousness, I think your argument comes down to a confusion over controversy and blanket terms.

To get rid of the vagueness of arguing over “evolution,” let’s get to the point and say the topic of the argument is, “Life, as it is today, evolved from previous species,” or even, “Humans evolved from previous animals.”

There is no controversy in science over these two claims. The controversy is social and political. But science is not determined by politics and society. What politics and society say about science holds no bearing on scientific truth.

Whereas evolution, in general, is a scientific theory, the various points of the theory, such as “humans have evolved from other life forms,” is a demonstrable scientific fact.

Sounds like you had fun.
Make any difference?

Nope.

Faith is immune to logic, my man.

And just for the record, I hold Reed in pretty high regard, as he has maintained somewhat of a friendship with me going on a little over a year. Regardless of our personal beliefs, I hope everyone knows Reed’s gayness, atheism, baldness, and witty retorts are precious ‘reed-isms’ in my book.