Well... the difference is... that evolution is a theory. And those who believe that that is how things have come about recognize and admit that it is a theory and may or may not be the way in which things have come about. It is taught as the "most probable" way with the data we have to date and is not immune from being completely scrapped if something else comes along to say otherwise. "This is the way it is" is not usually said when scientific bodies are talking about evolution... "This is the way it is theorized to be" is usually the wording used. So it may be. Or it may not be. But with the data available at this time... it is the "most probable" theory.

Religions do not follow those same guidelines.

__________________

Please,you as well as I know that to have a theory you must beleive in a theory.
Evolutionist have been pressing hard ever since the old "monkey trial".
Where it was said that evolution was on trial.
Witch by the way was false a man was on trial for teaching evolution the man was the defenant not evolution as evolutionist would have us beleive.
What did that prove ;the man was found innocent it does not mean that having faith in God is guilty.
And on more than one occasion I have heard certain evolutionist say that Global Warming is just the way the planet does therefore dismising Man's contribution to global warming.
And, I need not go into the theory's of "most probabal" it would be off track

Actually Scopes was found guilty in court. He was only found innocent in the court of public opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

The point remains the same Scopes; not evolution was on trial .

In criminal court, yes, only Scopes was on trial. In the court of opinion, evolution was on trial. Scopes lost in criminal court, but evolution won in the court of opinion.

There is no denying evolution, IMHO. I have no doubts that evolution is the method God used to create the earth.

Well........ anyway... I agree that religion and evolution can be compatible for individuals. But you will generally find more religious believers that say "Oh, not it's not!" than non-believers.

In my opinion, you can believe in whatever god you want and believe in the theory of evolution, too. It won't change whether or not evolution is eventually proven as fact. But there are some religions who say that believing in the theory of evolution goes against whatever religious beliefs they have.. therefore condemning you and making you not a true believer. I think those would be better to answer this question cuz for the most part I think you are going to get "Yes" as your answer to this thread.

__________________

Well, first I don't buy that stuff about having no freinds.
Second, isn't Religion and Evolution both beleifs on differant sides of the same coin?
You have said you have seen some religious who beleive that evolution could be true,and some religious beleive it's a load.
Just one question have you ever seen an evolutionist who beleives that it might be possible for a higher power to have played a force in the evolutionary process?
I think not,perhaps they still beleive in the appearance of energy and matter out of thin air, or perhaps it's coincedance the energy and matter just happened to bump into each other in such a perfect way?
To create life, TALK ABOUT BLIND FAITH?

Well, I've been called "sinful" BY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.
BEEN CALLED STUPID BY EVOLUTIONIST.
SOME NAMES I can't repeat in the presence of a LADY BY THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT WING.
BUT WHAT CAN I SAY, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A BIT OF NONCOFORMIST

Well, I think we all know the allegations made between Christians over their belief or disbelief in evolution. But to be fair, I've also read accounts where some scientists have hurtfully been labeled as psuedoscientists by their professional peers for even questioning the evidence and work of other evolution scientists. I remember a while back, how a scientist (an old earth scientist), at the Smithsonian Institute was for demoted, and afterwards accused his peers of bullying him after the publication of one of his papers. He even accused a few of questioning his political beliefs (insinuating that he voted for Bush).

Discovery Institute - Article Database - US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN

There is also the story of Dr. Richard Milton, an atheist and evolution scientist who sincerely questioned some of the evidence for Darwinism, and said that true science should be open to debate. After the publication of his paper entitled, "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism", he said in his own words, that he experienced a "kind of witch-hunting activity by the Darwinian police". Unsurprisingly, the worst accusations came from the now famous Richard Dawkins, who accused Milton of being "stupid", "looney" and "in need of psychiatric help". Milton said that Dawkins even wrote newspaper editors telling them that Miton was a "secret Creationist" and should not be believed.

Here is an article by Milton himself.
World Mysteries: Darwinism - The forbidden subject, by Richard Milton

These are just two of the countless accusations I've read that supposedly takes place behind the scenes when it comes to Darwinism and evolution.

But regardless of the personal belief, I"m on board with Izzibeth when it comes to tolerance of other views without making brutal accusations or resorting to bullying tactics. And like presluc said, it is true that after intense debates on the existence of G-d, both sides usually walk away without having their perspective changed by the other person. So I usually don't engage in such conversations once it becomes a heated debate.

I didn’t have time to read all of the posts here but I read a book on the Scopes trial and yes, Scopes was the MAN who was on trial not evolution. However, It was the first radio broadcasted trial in American history and a large percentage of America was listening in because they wanted to hear the debate between religion and evolution not scopes v. the state. Scopes was found guilty before the first appeal. It then very much turned into a debate over weather or not evolution was combatable with religion and they found that it was in the end (on reason being, because religion is open to interpretation).

__________________