[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

You are taking the word "evolution" far out of context. To suggest that creatures, through reproduction, evolve over time is indeed a fact.

Though you're using the word to define itself, that's what evolution is.

The evolution we are speaking of, however, is the idea that evolution and evolution alone is what created life as we know it today.

No, evolution says nothing about the creation of life. Again a basic misunderstanding of what the theory says. The origin of life is abiogenesis.

That theory is just that: a theory just as Creationism or the idea of intelligent design is. Use the word "fact" any way you want, what we are comparing here is theory vs. law, and a law evolution isn't.

Again a basic misunderstanding of science. A theory doesn't "graduate" to become a law someday. Theories and laws are two completely different things and describe two different things. Evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can ever be a fact.

Evidence supports both sides

BS. Evolution is one of the most tested and accurate theories ever produced by science. ID has produced nothing, made no predictions, met none of the strict criteria that a real scientific theory has. If you understood what a scientific theory was and didn't just view it as an opinion you'd see that.

Creationism isn't science, it's faith, and that's fine, there's nothing wrong with believing in a creator that created everything based on faith (i.e. God set the Big Bang in motion, or God used evolution to create the diversity of life), but it's just that; faith. It's not science, and should not be treated as science any more than science should be treated as speaking to the nature of God.

Time and again it's asked to bring out this mythical evidence, but it's never produced. Meanwhile the evidence for evolution piles up daily.

and no one side is "better" than another, but just because you believe one to be true over the other does not make it concretely so.

Define "better". Some theories more accurately describe reality than others, that's one way I would use better in this case. From a theological point of view Creationism is better than ID because it actually names the creator instead of ignoring the question, and evolution doesn't speak to the nature of God.

After all if there was a right and wrong in this discussion there wouldn't ever be a debate about its truth would there now?

Except that the debate typically doesn't go around the actual correctness or incorrectness of things, it goes around the general lack of scientific understanding of one side, where the other has to spend all their time correcting the basic understanding of the other.

The place that the REAL debates about the science takes place, academic papers and such, the debate is at the level of how specific mechanics of evolution take place, but the basic theory isn't debated, because it's far more right than anything else.