As I have no problem with people who believes in the mythical creature that supposed to have been the anestor of both ape and man. As the writer in my article points out often believing is seeing even with evolutionists. I do try to understand why Darwinist believes what they do and sometimes they make give reasons to believe what they do.

Also just because I have faith doesn't mean there isn't any sound evidence or reason behind my faith. True Faith is never alone.

Here is a Douglas Adams quote I'm particularly fond of...

“Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.”

 

Note this is from a work of fiction and is meant as a joke, although it does possess a grain of truth. 

Kasz:

 If an intelligent being (God) created the universe and all life within it, wouldn't he be a physicist to end all physics?, the greatest scientist of all time? The answer is surely yes. As a scientist wouldn't he/she/it reward logical, rational thinking based on evidence, rather than blind faith?

I don't believe in God in any form, I am just showing you the weakness in that argument. 

 Actually both the Catholic and Anglican churches have to some extent accepted evolution. To quote Pope John Paul II "Evolution is more than just a hypothesis". I believe the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has said something to similar effect.

I agree with you , I don't beleive in the science god  (nor any of the old nature gods) either as he would seem to be pretty empty.

Just a point to Creationist and life :

Some of you are pointing out that, even if evolution seems possible between living forms, the Evolution Theory can't explain how the Life has started from non-biological forms. I want to say to you one thing :
You are completely right. The start of Life is very difficult question that is not very well understood. There are some hypotesis but they are far from being solid and of course we are not able to replicate life in vitro.
But, what you also have to know is that even if Science is not able to prove how Life has started on Earth, there are also no evidence indicating the existence of a God (or similar entity with creative capacity). It means that this "black hole" in the scientifc model of Life is absolutely NOT an argument that u should use to prove that God exists and has created Life.
Then, IF you want to have scientific position on Life, u have to find your own evidence about God.

Then I m asking to Creationist :

what are your ACTIVE evidence that God exists or that "something" created Life ?
What are your explanation about Life's birth ?

If u don't have any evidence, except the lack of credibility of our actual scientific evidences at your eyes OR ur Faith, then u dont have a rationnal evidence that can be used in this discussion, then it means you are not talking about Science but Religion. In this case, this discussion is pretty useless.

Note : there are a lot of "black holes" in the Evolution Theory (even the most recent version) but a Theory is supposed to be a model, not the "TRUTH, but something that seems to explain what we are observing around us (here we are talking about LIFE). Also note a model is supposed to be destroyed or to be perfected with the time and new idea input. It is a scientific reasonnement that need to be proven and that can be destroyed/modulated with new ideas. It has nothing to do with a Religious claim ...

 please dont ever say that ID is a scientific theory.  a scientific theory is as close to a scientific fact as possible.  gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory.  its one thing to have a belief in something, but to push it as a theory or just a theory is the wrong thing to say. It proves ignorance.

 to become a scientific theory it has to be thoroughly tested and have pretty much no other explanation that fits the data as of now.

also, to claim that ID is a science is wrong.  science is a process.  it involves taking a guess, trying to prove it, then improving the guess based on data, and repeating the processes until no improvement is possible.  ID states that we are how we are based on something which we cant test for.  i believe that people have the right to believe in ID, but not to push it in any way, shape, or form in the science classroom.

I'm surprised to see so many people still using the term Creationism when the religious right has adopted the concept of Intelligent Design. It's semantics of course; no difference in concept, but the term Creationism really heralds back to an age in which science was deemed largely as a religion itself by the majority. See the "watchmakers analogy" in reference.

Personally, I don't see why any religious individual should be at odds with the theory of evolution. Even an intelligent designer (God) needs to have a means by which all creation came into being. Something a bit more plausible that genie style "wishing" things into being. Evolution could be seen as the ultimate means of creating lifeforms and the means by which an omniscient being could create all life.

Now that may conflict with what an individual learned in Sunday school/bible study, but considering that the old testament itself was written by Hebrews thousands of years ago (by men) it is entirely a leap of faith, the very crux of religion, that these writing were in fact "inspired by Yahweh." Keeping in mind that people thousands of years ago did not have the ability to observe what can be observed today. What could not even be imagined or fathomed in the antiquities is reality today.

So there's no mention of evolution in the bible. No one thought of the idea. No one could understand it with the limits of human intellect at the time. If someone found a fossil of dinosaur, it must have been a mythological beast of some kind (like the babylonian sirrush).

So it's a theory. With flaws and inconsistencies. But the evidence to support the theory far outweighs evidence to the contrary. It is not a reason to simply believe all of reality was simply "willed" into being.

@Rath,

I see ur point but I m not totally convinced. In a way, if there is a new character, what is the need to spread it on the whole population ?
I think all sould be linked to geograpical isolation that may be the "starter" of speciation.

I m not sure, Im just not convinced. and where starts a small group ?
2 ? 100 ? 1000 individus ?

@sqrl,

I doubt dolphins or any others animals species can match our "intelligence".
It is not that we are qualitatively different from them (superior mamalian possess intelligence capacity + communication system like us) but we are quantitatively so far from them.

Take a human monkey from birth. Put all the efforts u want to develope his intelligence/memory, it will never match a well educated six years old children.
In fact, I believe 95% of the human beings, including the low educated ones with low knowledge, can own The Most Intelligent Monkey of All Time.