Apoptosis

I'm going to add this from a biological perspective. Human nature is designed by Evolution to favor the increase of the frequency of a certain set of genes in future generations. Since most, or rather all humans are related, we are then selected to increased the population of fellow humans. Humans love to help others because it is benificial to entire humanity, Evolution allows us to do this by making us to feel good about ourselves when we cooperate and perform acts that are altruistic in nature. Atheists acts for the betterment of ALL humanity because they are not obligated to favor one group over the other, I can't say the same for many religious oriented people.

Oh you apathetic skeptic! Let's just never try to understand anything, because it won't make a difference! It gets dangerous when part of your beliefs are that you are right. Man: (kills babies) Police: MURDERER!! Man: I AM NOT A MURDERER!! I AM NOT WRONG BECAUSE IT IS MY BELIEF! Police: ... sure buddy Man: GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT! Okay I don't want to push buttons, but when you believe you're right because your belief tells you so we get Suicide Bombers and Jihadists.

In Medicine we call that psychosis, and when in a group we call it mass hallucination. Demonic influences can also do these things, Apoptosis...no hallucination about it. So could a hallucingenic drug that alters brain chemistry or a good wack to the head, are you denying the fact that psychosis patients are caused by imbalance in brain chemistry and that these patients were the result of the devil manipulating their minds? Why do we even treat these people, why not just submit them to the church and have a massive exorcism rally? And really, the Devil must be very impotent, considering a man made chemical product could thwart his devious actions.

In Medicine we call that psychosis, and when in a group we call it mass hallucination.

Maybe I should have rephrased it as Scientific Cosmology, what WhySoBlind is refering to is more like Astrology, not Astronomy or Cosmology, Astrology is clearly a pseudoscience. We're not arguing semantics, you knew exactly what I meant, but is just using something completely irrelavent to try to prove that you are right. I cannot help myself but to say that maybe your name is quite indicative of your view on Science.

The fact that people fail to come up with explainations currently that fits perfectly well to observation doesnt mean all of non-creationist science have failed. As scientists, we are not quick to judge the progress of science, this is how science works, we come up with a theory, then we see if it could explain the evidences, if we can't, we modify or reject. And its through these refinements that we arrive at the final conclusion. It is unrealistic to think that we have found the way the cosmos works especially when the field of cosmology is only at its infancy. Plus, I cant help but to see that most of your qoutes are from the 1980s, 20 years behind the current progress of Cosmology. 20 years in a new field like Cosmoslogy is well... astronomical. I think you should read more on new theories and finding before youre so quick to herd your fellow christians to realms of intellectual denial.

Or he could be warning you not to persue magic because it doesn't exist, and would be a waste of time and even dangerous considering sometimes Magic asks for blood sacrifices. lol

you know what, nevermind. I'm obviously is not faithful enough to have this conversation, I'll save both of our time by saying that we agree to disagree till eternity. I can't really respond when anyone cites to know the ultimate truth first hand.

By your definition God is a fan of cruel and unusual punishment, of course, you could say that "oh he didnt punish us, the devil is" then I could say hes guilty of neglect. Plus, if he was as Good as you claim him to be, why would ANYONE rebel against him? Why would the devil think so illy of him? Of course you could say its in the Devil's nature to... wait... God, who is responsible for creation of EVERYTHING in the universe, could not fix this slight problem of evil? Why did he create evil, was it for his own amusement? Let me ask you a question, would you hold the grand son of a murderer to be responsible for murder? Why do god? I believe in Science because science has no internal contradictions, I cannot claim the same for God. I wont address this here, many philosophers have already addressed this problem. "This is absolutely not true. You cannot create heaven here on earth, since we have the devils' nature in us, and we perfectly accomplish his agenda. Look around yourself, see the hatred, the wars, the crocked dealings, the prejudices, the murders, the lies, and all the rest that surround us. Look at the hospitals, crowded by sick people." I dont think we have devil's nature in us, we have maybe primitive reptile tendencies, but not the devil, hatred, wars, and most bad things are caused by his reptilian tendency, which obviously many people have exploited using Religion. You see when people believe they know the absolute truth, they wont budge, there is no dialogue, so they kill eachother instead. To me, religion seems to cause more problems than it claims to solve. You claim that Christ is the truth, but on what grounds? I could be posting the same thing in an Islamic forum, they would reply the same thing that their God is the TRuth, or a Hindu one, or an Realian one even. So which one is true?! They all have about the same merit, how do you prove one over the other? Whats the fundamental difference? The Bible? and what makes the bible so special? Its age? cant be, the Veda is much older, wouldnt that mean Hindu has much more credibility? Apparently not to you, so whats the distinguishing feature? Jesus and the fact he rose from the dead? Mm.. as I remember it, there were Greek mythology incidences where dead came back to life... so should I conclude Zeus has more merit than God? WHERE IS THE DECIDING CHARACTERISTIC? You make the claim that progress is only towards hell, I have yet to see hell nor heaven, I've only seen the improvement of human life over the centries because of advancement of Science and the dwindling of fundamental religion. And to me, if this trend progresses, man made heaven is very much possible. And no, no amount of religious reading would change my mind. I'd rather God just appear before me, of course, me and a witness to indicate im not having a psychotic episode to prove that there Might be something that Science currently cannot explain. You seem to have such LOW expectation of humanity to which I am quite sad, I hope this is not representative of the entire religion.

Most Christians hate war, as well. I have no desire to go back, but unfortunately, it happens. If we look at the modern threat from islamic terrorists, I can't say it's a cause of wrongful hoarding of rescources or anything like that. It's what some of them claim, because that's what the world wants to hear. If only the "evil" US would not trample on their resources, they would leave us alone, seems to be the flavor of the day. That message generates the needed sympathy for their cause. It's funny how we fall for such idiocy, but fall we do. In fact, their cause is a religious one, founded in unrational leadership and flamed by rhetoric. Many other wars, of course, do stem from a threat, whether real or perceived, that someone is getting the shaft from someone else. Other times, it's a matter of insanity on the part of a maniacal leader. I agree with many of your assessments concerning the cause of many wars. One thing you left out, however, is human nature. The sinful heart of mankind continues to march people to war. It seems that no matter how far we advance in both science and technology, we still find ways to advance in weaponry, as well. Weaponry is still wielded by the hand, though. In my opinion, we will never get to the point where there is no more war until Jesus comes back and stakes His claim on earth. Even then, there will be trouble at the end of the following 1,000 years. Human nature will not allow us to share, love, and live in peace. Even if we turned to a system of total communism with 100% shared wealth and complete loss of national identity, it will not be enough to settle man's heart. Always, there will be someone wanting just a little more, and have the heart to use violence to achieve his goals. The utopian society will never work if left to man's devices, no matter how rational we think we can be. It just ain't going to happen. I agree that the fight over energy resources will be the cause of the next world war, but I think it will be even more easily understood than that. Man will use the excuse of energy, but it will still be his fallen heart which will be at the center of it. Although you may think only science will solve future energy problems, it is still the human heart which wields the science, along with it's findings. Science is not the blame for anything. By itself, it is nothing more than a tool we use. It is also not the cure for anything, either. Only the hand which holds the key can be the determining factor, whether it is holding a weapon or a scientific discovery. Mankind will hold up whichever it feels can do it the most good for itself. Without changing the heart, the weapon will most likely be the tool most often used. We may find, tomorrow, they key to all energy problems through science. But this discovery will be useless unless people decide they want to use it. Science and religion. Both of them hold the answers to how we can get along, but the human heart prevents us from using them both the way they should be. Until this problem is fixed, you can count on more war. You can forget about utopian societies where everyone holds hands and shares their wealth. It's simply not an option today. No amount of science or religion is going to change that. Jesus is the answer! Actually I did say "Most conflicts occur because we will not let go of some deeply held belief (either political or religious) that we are right and the other side is wrong." which would include the current war in the middle east. I didnt want to point it out as a specific example because I didnt want to be seen like im laying blame on religion itself, and there are other causes, but religion is the motivating factor for the common people. And you are right, we have a significant problem to overcome if we were to attempt to establish a better society. But I don't agree with you that we are forever the slaves of human nature. I am an advocate of evolution, and human nature to me is just a vestage of our past evolution that helped our reptilian forerunners to better survive in a less hospitable enviroment. The sense of territoriality, the paranoia, and agression, theyre just the result of millions of years of evolution which we have not yet evolved past the point to get a hold of it, these are the reasons why we've evolved the Cerebrum, a center of logical rational thought to over come our ancient reptilian nature. We're given intelligence to be social, to have empathy, to build societies, and I think by developing more rational thinking and put the Cerebrum to better use, we can eventually overcome our "human nature", or at least channel it constructively instead of destructively. The greed which you spoke of, the need to be better than everybody else, we could channel it with our brain to further our science and art, afterall this is what drives us in the end. I would be foolish of me to say we should not be affected by emotions, but at least we should be able to apply it better. Think of science like a form of free will, You can use it to destroy yourself, or you can use it to better yourself.

I think most religious people aim for the same goal as those of atheist, we're just approaching the problem from different sides. While you hope you improve the condition of human spirit, we (atheists) are more focused on the objective and easily measurable value like living conditions. Atheists are not anti-spiritual persons, the ones who really understand science and how it works and what it could promise (like Carl Sagan) probabaly would feel no different from reading the book of molecular biology than you would read the scriptures. Religon gives you guys a sense that you belong to something greater, and science does the same for us. Just like God and saints humbles you, the discoveries of Science humbles us. I'm not sure how many of you are aquainted to the Cassini-Hygen missions to Saturn, but I would like to share a picture that produced the same wonder for us as you may find in your spiritual experiences. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/imag...fm?imageID=2314 This is a picture of Saturn eclipse, where Saturn is eclipsing the sun from the observer. Something to think about... This vantage point has NEVER been seen by a living human since the dawn of life, WE are seeing it for the first time through the eyes of science. The little insignificant spek behind the ring near the top left of the right is our Earth, everyone you ever know, you ever loved, you ever hated is on that ping point of light, all the wars ever fought for was for an insignificant plot of land or an insignificant idea is on that dust. What do you feel? Look at the molecule of DNA, it is so simple, much simpler than any protein, but thats what connects every living thing that had ever lived on this planet. You are coded in the same way as the blade of grass, as your neighbors, as your significant other, as your worst and most hated enemies. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/r...ormat/large_web The "pillar of creation" in the Eagle Nebula, something to think about, each of the blobs of gas on the top left pillar is the size of the entire solar system, not the sun, but the ENTIRE solar system including its planets. These are the things that in science that induces the sense of wonder and spirituality of atheist scientists, does it appeal to you the same way? But Science isn't about just that, what it offers, the propect and promise is much more amazing than these images. With Science we could GO there, we could see the stars, the nebulae, see with our own eyes what the Saturn eclipse looked like, view the Jupiter rise on its moon. Science not only awes, but empowers humanity. We could with science wave away all the sufferings of the world, the hunger and deaths, the sick and the poor, are these not the same goals? What baffles me is that how a God suppose he exist would judge a person based on what they believe in, is the sense of justice shared among religions and nonreligous people not equal? Are atheist's sense of empathy and compassion somehow inferior? It would be utterly illogical to proclaim a God who would nitpick with humans about if they really believed in him. Does he really place believe in him over the moral actions of humans? Why would it matter if someone believed in him or not, if he existed, somebody believe in him does not make him nonexistent. If he was an objective God, he would judge you by your moral actions and character, not your faith in him. This is why I believe in Science and not God, his very nature confounds me, and if he did exist and he was such jealous character that would judge me to hell because I didnt believe in him dispite the hundreds of life that I aimed to save and possibly saved through disbelieve and science, then hes not the type of God that I would EVER believe in. I judge his actions immoral and I'd rather burn in hell than to submit. And why rely on him? Why wait to get into heaven after death, when you can create your own on earth? I would believe in a God if he/she didn't nit pick about insignificant details. I would believe value of your moral actions is considered absolute more important over your believe orientations. I would believe in a God that did not claim to have influence over the material universe. I would believe the God of Truth and not faith. I would believe in the God that promotes progress instead of stasis. Think about it, why cant your god promote scientific progress? Why MUST he be involved in the creation of EVERYTHING? Wouldnt it be logical for you to deduce that since God gave you intelligence, you should use it to know MORE about he universe? Is there no possibility that the bible might be the work of man and not the intention of God? Is it so inconceivable that maybe God just left the universe alone and allowed evolution to occur and that he really wanted you to find that out. Is it really so inconcievable that he is not a God of Science, one that promote us to be doubtful, and to judge based on evidence, and to accept the truth no matter how unfriendly it might seem? Whats wrong with a God of Doubt, a God of Truth? Whats wrong with a God that considers Science as a form of worship?

I never said anything about religion. Are there "less wars" due to advancements in technology? I don't know, really. Depends on how you look at it. Certainly, the world is not in a general state of war today, but little battles and skirmishes go on none the less, making it seem like we are heading for something big. Islamic extremism seems to be the biggest threat today to world peace. People also say the same about the US, too, I guess. I do think the advent of nuclear weapons causes those that hold them to think twice about using them, but they haven't really done much to curb other forms of warfare. My point was simply that advancements in technology hasn't done much to curb mankind's desire for war much. It made war a bit more lethal and exact in targeting, but it hasn't lessened our urge to blow the other guy out of the water, over all. I would figure that, as advanced as many of the largest nations are today, we would have figured out how to live together without killing each other by now. Although many of the largest and more advanced nations have not really warred against each other since the '40's, we just lived through something that could have been disastrous (the Cold War). For now, there is a relative peace among the larger nations, but will we grow to leave war behind due to technology? To me, it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction- just as the Bible says. Now, you can nail me for bringing religion into the discussion. t. I meant to say scientific, wrong word to use in the context I guess. We are technologically "advanced", but not rationally advanced. Most conflicts occur because we will not let go of some deeply held belief (either political or religious) that we are right and the other side is wrong. This is why a lot of scientists are against religion because it claims to know absolute truth, it opens doors for abuse of that power. A dialogue can only occur between nations when either side give in a little and play with the possibility that its view of the world MAY be wrong or at least incomplete, and only with dialogue (actually completely wiping out your enemies does the same, but thats counter productive and immoral in most cases) can peace be achieved. Most scientist and atheists hates war, and will wish it away if they could, war occurs not because of science, but because the unevent distrubution of science and resources in the world instigated by people/political/religious leaders who are NOT rational, and who are NOT scientific in their assessment/jugement of situations. If we continue to become a more rational society, I think we will abandon war and become more or less a global entity instead of discrete nations. We will identify ourself as Humans of the Earth instead of Americans of the USA. The removal of ingroups would decrease out group hostility, since there would be no out group. The only conflict i can see occuring in the future would the result of an Energy crisis... But that could be solved with Science, and in fact it could ONLY be solved with science. PS. Giaour... The ability to doubt God is also from God, since he gave us the rationality to Doubt.

I agree: There should be a less likelihood of war with the advancement of technology, but is it the case today? Are we fighting less today, as a whole, than we were 300 years ago? 500 years? Your theory is yet to be observed, I'm afraid. t. My Theory is observed if you just look. 300 years ago, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese are all involved in some kind of war for territory and colonies, the entire african continent was in constant warfare between tribes. Japan Shoguns are killing eachother for power, Chinese emperial government changes some times through violence through each dynasty. Now we have some infighting among africans in africa in isolated areas, most of africa is not affected, a war in the middle east, but the majority of europe is at peace. So yes, there are less wars and it cannot be because of religion because the states in europe are becomming more and more secular.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease. Science didn't save millions, God did. Next time you need a surgery, you can goto the church and pray instead of going to a doctor, why not cut the middleman and go directly to the source? LOL

Everyone who lives in denial needs a foundation, those who pit science against faith need a basis to justify their sinful nature and ultimately their lifestyle. Science unfortunately, becomes a tool of imoral justification and no longer a tool of education. Peace CJ Our foundation is rational reason, logic, and evidence beyond reasonable doubt. While it is true that Science and Religion can leave themselves alone, the principles of science (the mindset itself) is in opposite of religion which teaches not to doubt but believe things with no physical evidence. In science, what you believe does not make it true, you could believe with all your heart that the speed of light is not constant does not make the speed of light itself any different. Thats why Science, or rather scientific thinking is especially opposed and mutually exclusive to religious faith based thinking. You judge of science is flawed, science is not a tool for moral or immoral justification. Moral values is based on reason, and you just like any athiests use it to make moral judgements. For instance, we all consider killing another person is an immoral act because we know its the wrong thing to do, but why its wrong sometimes changes because how you attempt to rationalize it. For atheist it might be because killing the person is counter productive, or it causes more unnecessary suffering for yourself or others, or maybe because you are denying the other's person right to live, a right that we all have, while say a religion person may attribute the rationale to God or Jesus, act of not killing is prefered by a Deity, but then you have to ask yourself WHY do these deities condem violence and attempt to mitigate suffering. Atheist is only cutting the middle man of God and approach the problem in a more direct approach. It hasn't stopped. Evolution takes millions and millions of years. There's no way to see it happen. The apes and monkeys that are around today are not the same as the apes and monkeys that were around when early hominid species first evolved. They were different. We didn't evolve from modern-day apes. I have a question then...where in the fossil record does one find the Pre-Hominid fossils? There is no evidence whatsoever of a mediary species of these so called "Hominid Species" in the fossil layer. Believing in the fossil layers is like grabbing a verse out of scripture and implying ones own "extra biblical" interpretation. The Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian layer completely and irrefutably demonstrates that life exploded on the scene with fully developed life forms that still exist today. One has to engage in fantasia interpretation of the fossil layer to conclude human evolution over long periods of time. The timeline therefore, becomes the basis for shifting the burden of proof (denial) from the evolutionist to the theist... "We say based on the evidence it takes millions of years for evolution to occur...prove us wrong!" This type of "proof shifting" runs rampant throughout the scientific community, Jan Hendrik Oort, the man who theorized the Oort cloud, Ernst Haeckel the man who tried to prove that human embryos had gill slits which the don't (Link) are just a couple that comes to mind, fortunately Haeckel was proven wrong and Ooorts fantasy is so far fetched that there is no evidence to support it... no difference. The fossils within the fossil record cannot be dated, the dating is done exclusively through the hypothesis that the layers within the Geologic Column were formed over millions of years and that each succesive layer equates to a timeline...pure speculation and cannot be proven. There is no other way other than this theoretical basis of conjecture, to establish a timeline. The only thing that the fossil layers prove, is that things die. Everything that dies today undergoes decay and decomposition, if the Gelogic Column is accurate, why do we not fossilize today?...where are the fossils for the future generations going to come from if all living species decompose? Peace CJ We have hard time finding this "pre-hominid" remains for mainly two reasons: 1: You are ignoring the fact that Lucy is not the supposed pre-hominid 2: pre-hominid remains are very efficult to preserve over geological times because - a) Hominid bones are fragile compared to say Dinosaur bones b) Hominid were never as wide spread and high in population density than other mammals like mice, the more individuals you have the higher the likelyhood of leaving remains around, but when your population is merely a few hundred thousand, its very rare for remains to survive. c) There is a point of hominid evolution that we stop refering to them as hominids, infact then are then just as more related to chimps than human, and it would be just bad language to still include them in the hominid (branch to human) family. These remains would bare no resemblance to humans, and much more like chimps and other primates we see today. (which people like you reject them as pre-hominid remains just because you dont want to accept it.) I am not a good source to explain the pre-cambrian life explosion, a person experienced in paleontology would. But I don't see how you could conclude that the "explosion" is contrary to the evolution of the human species, your post is only a statement with no apparent attempt to present your arguement. Plus i don't think you understand the word "explosion" when used on a geological timescale. These species did not just pop out of nowhere in matter of days or centries, or even millenias, but on MILLIONS of years (30 to be exact). Life existed in the oceans for billions of years before that, and the reason why there was an explosion in complex life forms could be the built up of molecular oxygen in the atomsphere and dissolved oxygen in the oceans produced by the algae in the oceans for the billion year before. I could explain the above on a molecular biology basis. The early atomsphere of the planet is very thin in oxygen, if you know anything about chemistry, you would understand that Oxygen is a very good eletron acceptor and therefor could oxidize other molecules. During an oxidation reaction, a lot of energy is released either in the form of heat (much like burning gas in your truck engines) or in other forms such as mechanical work. When the microorganism in the early life of earth grew, they released tons of molecular oxygen from different molecules such as CO2, Sulfates, NO with the assistance of sunlight via photosynethesis. This gas built up in the atomsphere long enough to reach the required pressure for it to persist into the oceans to a point the oceans becomes more oxygenates. Since the use of oxygen as final electron acceptor in a red-ox reaction released a lot of energy, cells that became capable of using oxygen became VERY successful. When enough energy, more complex life could evolve because cells no longer needs to be surounded by their enviroment, they could be surrounded by other cells, and more cells. This abundance of energy is what caused the "explosion" of life during the 30 million years. The only people engaged in "fantasia" interpretation of evidence would be people who believe someone or something consciously caused this to happen, not scientists who reach for plausible cause via unguided natural laws of physics. The proof of burden has NEVER shifted, the proof of burden has always been on the party that refutes an idea. This is what science is based on -Falsifiability-, and this has always been the way science has worked. However, unlike religion, we do not BELIEVE in evolution as much that we think it is a plausible method for things become as they are beyond any reasonable doubt, the lack of doubt is based purely on logical arguement, physical evidence, and down to earth explainations that doesnt involve the supernatural. I believe all scientist even if they disagree will agree on one thing, that is, they will change their mind if you can present them irrifutable evidence to the contrary, such as say a very well preserved boat of human construction buried in the precambrian period. The Fossil records doesnt just get dated because what layer they lie on, the earth crust shift and may dislocate a layer of fossil and it would cause havok in dating, fossils can be dated by radio-dating which has an error of at most a few million years which on a geological timescale isnt really that much. Of course, radio-dating as its own assumptions but you can't rejected because you think we should, you have to come up with evidence for reason why we should reject a perfectly working method, for instance evidence indicating that radio decay is not constant over time or the very early earth has a highly different radio composition than current earth. (the former would come from the field of physics, the latter would come from geology or cosmology.) Like I said before, the bones of mammals are very fragile compared to dinosaurs and hard for them to survive the millions of years of geological compaction to be fossilized. Even if they did, fossil bones of mice could be passed off by a casual observer as just a odd shaped pebble. We also do not see fossilization because it takes a very long time for fossilization - which is the replacement of minerals of the bones by minerals of surrounding rock or soil. This requires that the sorrounding soil has abundant minerals to fossilize it (dirt doesnt really do it, its too porous and allows even the decomposition of bones) You have to use say cement like material rich in minerals. And I could guarentee you if you were to do that today to a human remain, it will fossilize after a few million years. Future generations would not need to have fossil, we have much better form to store animal life information such as discs, books, pictures, their genome even, (if fact if you store their genome on a disc, they could develop technology to ressurect that living creature to study its physiology.) All of these are much better than fossilization. I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease. Only to later blow them up in high-tech wars. t. That't not true, as technology advances there should be less likelyhood of war. Many of you doesn't think so, but consider if you were living in the middle ages, how often do you think your homes will be ravaged by war? Wars decrease as technology advance for two reasons: 1: Some wars are caused by lack of resources such as land, energy, or food - advancement in technology could solve all of this, removing reasons for war. 2: Some wars are caused by misunderstanding or indoctrination in forms of out group hostility, a more technical society would increase the education and awareness and reasonability of the individual that they would recognize War doesnt solve problems the way thats most productive. 3: Advanced technology allows for more likelihood of MAD, it would be very extremely counter productive for a country to fight a war it knows it wont come out unscathed. 4: even wars did break out, it would be very unlikely for countries to use weapons of mass destruction fearing number 3. Advanced technology allows for precision war with much less civilian casualties.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

I am going to digress from the topic by a small bit, but its a question to raise as food for thought. Suppose that moral absolutes exist (I believe it does) Now the question is: Are God subject to these moral absolutes? OR Does god Dictates whats morally acceptable as absolutes? Before you choose, the first choice indicate people can be moral without God, because Moral can exist in the absence of God since it comes before God and God in turn is obliged to obey absolute values of morality. the second choice opens up the question to evaluate if Absolute Values can be considered "absolute" if they were made because if God could made moral values this way, they could have changed the value to some other kind of moral value such as one that indicate it is okay to stone people to death.

somthing that is impossible to prove, so it's based on faith. once again, has as much proof as there being a creator. All facts found remain as neutral to both claims. So why is evolution, and Christianity separate in the eyes on science, faith in God, or faith in a theory, it still is neutral with facts they've found. Actually, you could prove that they still evolve and its not based on faith. The problem lies that human lifespan does not live long enough to actively observe evolution, however we do see evidence of the result of evolution. Your claim of evidence to fit creationism is right, it does. BUT so does everything else. I could find a pink unicorn in my backyard and you would indicate God did it. But that explaination in itself explains nothing. (in fact the way that every evidence fits creationism or intelligent design means its unfalsifiable, a character required of a SCIENTIFIC theory, so by that standard, ID and Creationism is not even science.) Lets look at another example, suppose that you were living in the dark ages, and a visitor from the future produced you a lightbulb which to you of dark age education standard would be indistinguishable from magic/miracle. You could either Reject it has realworld explainations (such as chemical battery->reductionn/oxidation->direct current/movement of electrons->excitation of filiment) and say that God did it, or be skeptical that it is a miracle and search for the physical cause of this apparent "miracle" and somehow reproduce its effect by yourself. The former scenario you have zero gain, accepting explaination of god is accepting none-explaination. The latter you may find that it works on a sound physical principle and able to produce its effect and benifit the people of your country by giving them eletricity.