[Phsstpok]

You encapsulate my entire argument with the whole "evolution vs intelligent design" debate. Those who insist that God must not have had any role in evolution (which is the central argument against ID) are confusing mechanics (evolution) with causation (a creator versus random chance).

Random chance is not sufficient to explain random chance. The pot cannot hold itself. That an evolutionary mechanism has been involved in the progress of life on Earth is logically defensible based on the available evidence. Whether there was an intelligence behind that process or not is not even touched on in the slightest. Those who insist otherwise are making an argument based on their faith, whatever it may be. Therefore the issue of a creator should either be completely left out, either pro or con, or both the thought that there is none and the thought that one must be there must be given equal weight in any presentation.

The problem is that the committed Darwinists who so despise ID are trying to insist that evolution "proves" that there is no God. That is not only ridiculous it is patently false.

[MRMEAN]

The problem is that the committed Darwinists who so despise ID are trying to insist that evolution "proves" that there is no God.

I don't recall anyone here at FR attempting to show that evolution proves there is no God; I've seen the defenders of the idea of Darwinian evolution, whether they label themselves believers, atheists, and those that I have not seen declare their faith, say that the fact of evolution, and the TOE itself, can tell us nothing about the existence of God. You may, in fact be in agreement with Darwin himself (at least at some level):

Darwin was not an atheist, but a deist; that is he believed that some creating intelligence had designed the universe and set up natural laws according to which all of nature was unwaveringly governed.