MrHambre,
Keeping an open mind means at times you may have to change it. I gather there's no chance of that as far as you're concerned.
If that statement were true I would not be a Christian or a creationist. It was the fact that I kept an open mind that caused me to change the way I WAS to make me into who I AM.
That said, you're absolutely correct that the theory of evolution by natural selection can't be proven true. Data doesn't 'prove' anything. The notion of a scientific theory is that it's a framework for organizing data, generating testable hypotheses, and guiding future research. The vast majority of observations are illuminated by this framework: there is a comprehensible order to life on Earth, and the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.
I agree up until the last statement.
...the basis of the interrelations among life forms is common ancestry.
That is your interpretation of the evidence, but I would interpret it NOT to be common ancestry, but common design.
If evolution were a religious belief system, I wouldn't expect to see people from every conceivable philosophical and religious background who accept its validity. Check out posts from people on this very board and you'll find Christians, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, and atheists arguing in favor of Darwin's theory. It seems that creationism is the religious belief system, since its proponents are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists.
If you are right in stating this you must concede the existence of God, because everyone you mentioned (except for agnostics and atheists ) accept the existence of God. So if the majority of people accept evolution, thus making evolution true, does the majority of people accepting the existence of God make God true too? The key is not in how many people accept one view over another, but people interpret the evidence based on their belief. People who accept evolution accept it as a part of their belief system.
Creationists should deal with the same evidence as evolutionists, but unfortunately they're in the habit of merely ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit their concept. And conspicuously absent from the debate is evidence to support the plausibility of creation ex nihilo of species or life forms.
As already stated, the evidence is the same. We DO deal with the same evidence, we just look at it differently. You say the Grand Canyon ws layed down slowly over millions of years. We say it was layed down rapidly by water (they are sedimentary layers). Same evidence, different view.
I think it's safe to say you're oversimplifying the debate.
Nope, it really is this simple.
Best Regards,
"The Fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"
Creation Man
™ Version 4.2