The Whys of Evolution

I'd just like to post a question to the creationists out there...
as a former believer in christianity I am forced to ask: Why as adults do you still maintain a logical belief in the bible or any one particular religion? For me, it all ended as I started to explore other religions and finally delve into science. I personally am not attached to any one scientific theory, and I accept that science is a process whereby we strive to explain the natural world through observation and logical deduction. In that way, I accept evolution as a resonable theory supported by many facts. Creationism, however, doesn't have much in the way of fact behind it, and considering how many religions conflict with each other, I was forced to admit to myself that I had no good reason to choose one over another.
I also understand that faith is sometimes beyond fact simply by definition, but how does one accept such a thing? "I believe this so I don't need facts!!"?? It's just too hard to live with that. Science makes no such claims... there should be evidence for a claim, and if there isn't enough , that topic is still open to debate and modification. I hope someone can enlighten me with some interesting debate...

I agree that in many ways science and religion do not conflict, especially if you forget about the literal bible creationism.
Also, I don't necessarily refute the idea of an all powerful designer. It's something that can't be disproven. But, in my view, there's no reason to seriously consider it as a theory when it's utterly untestable. We can at least hypothesize about the effects of evolution, compare DNA across genomes, and make useful and testable predictions (that have led to many tangible results, e.g., comparison of multi-species DNA sequence to reveal functional elements like gene start sites).
I know some people then refer to string theory as untestable, but in some way it presents a coherent mathematical framework from which we can make predictions, for instance, the presence of the Higgs Boson. Some of these larger scale things can be tested to see if the results conflict with what string theory predicts. And of course, as science advances, more and more becomes testable; so, it's clearly worth pursuing. Intelligent design just seems to be a dead end... of course I can keep an "open mind" that other theories could be valid, but without a framework from which future experiments can be designed, how is it useful in the classroom?

Well, perhaps it is apples and oranges. And I would never scoff at anyone who believes in an intelligent designer at the root of all creation. But in that view, why do you suppose there is so much conflict between ID and evolution. The natural fabric of the universe could have been designed just so perfectly to allow life to arise as it did, bringing all the mechanisms to bear that allow for natural selection and evolution to arise. My problem with the current debates in society is not about how people feel about religion, because it's not clear to me if we will ever understand the true nature of space,time,infinity,and creation... but it troubles me that in some places people will do whatever they can to discredit evolutionary theory when 1.It is sound, logical, and most scientists would consider it factual, and 2. I don't feel it conflicts with the idea of a creator as long as you accept the fact that he did not act as architect of each animal, plant, and insect, but rather architect of space,time,matter,etc.. which is truely what everything boils down to anyway.