Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. Living organisms change over time at the genetic level. Things like sexual reproduction combine two different genetic codes to get a unique genetic code and that is one of the drivers of evolution. Evolutionary theory (the "just a theory") is what combines all these observed facts about evolution and tries to make a coherent structure/view of what is taking place. ID on the other head wants to turn that concept on its head and say, "Some unknown designer, with unknown goals, in some unknown way, created some stuff." That isn't science it is junk.

As for my reaction is stems from the above. Ignoring the facts, the scientific method, and also in no small part due to the dishonesty of the ID proponents (by and large) in supporting their anti-science views. Look, you seem to be a guy somewhat in favor of market economies. Lets try an analogy.

Suppose we have the following, a person who argues:

1. Command economies are efficient.
2. Market economies are inefficient.
3. He ignores all evidence contradicting 1 & 2.
4. Concocts his own flawed theories to demonstrate 1 & 2.
5. The flaws have been pointed out by a host of experts in fields related to the study of market economies.

Would you consider the person in question is a bit of kook? Suppose further, this person is actually a group of people, who are well funded and having a fairly high profile impact on policy.

Get the drift.

Just wait, when nationalized health care rolls around again as a topic de jure I'll be arguing precisely the same way I am now about ID. The only difference then will be you'll agree with (my guess), and you wont be calling me some sort of religious fanatic then.

In short, your bias, which you seem oblivious too, is showing very clearly. I favor sound science and that is all there is to it.

And I'm willing to bet you still don't understand what I'm driving at, though I suspect better than half the people reading this do.

I don't mind evolutionary theory being challenged, but ID isn't it. ID is medival psuedo-scientific clap-trap. The fact that I find such psuedo-science objectionable is a damn weak argument. I take similar view to those opposed to market economies and favor command economies...I gues that makes market economies a religion.

Like I said, it was a stupid thing to write Bithead.

Explain to us, please how YOUR reaction to evolution being challanged, is in any way different from the reaction of anyone else's religious beliefs being challanged. You can't because there IS no difference.

That was a pretty stupid thing to write. evolutionary theory is not any more religious than meteorology, chemistry, etc. Evolutionary theory has no adherents--that is many people who believe in evolutionary theory describe their religious beliefs as something other than evolutionary thoery (e.g., Hindu, Christian, etc.).

If you call anything pursued with zeal and conscientious devotion then sure evolutionary thoery is a religion...but so is stamp collecting, video game playing, and just about any other hobby.

Really, read the Creationist Claims FAQ before posting, it will make you look less uninformed.

For example,

Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

Seems rather more like Chaos==>Mathematical Constructs==>Chaos Again. One merely has to stay in the Mathematical Membrane to be sane. Good luck!

Living organisms change overtime, it is an observed fact. Example, bacteria and resistance to anti-biotics. Bacteria that can eat nylon. Q.E.D.

manning,

I rely on Bayesian inference to validate many of my beliefs...is that sub-area of mathematics a religion also? People also use facts in their everyday life to verify their beliefs. For example, I'm using today's gasoline prices to verify my belief that tomorrows gasoline prices will likely be about the same price. Should we simply call all information and data religion?

Zelsdorf,

Sure mutations and evolution progresses at a very slow rate. But primates have been around for millions of years. And there is a fossil record of hominids. And as noted primates have been around for millions of years not 10s of thousands.

Also, everything taught in science classes are theories. Theories are the best explanation for the facts and the facts are that living organisms change over time and do so via mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.