The context I am working in is the one in which Iona asked for evidence of evolution and, after being given quite a lot which she cheerfully ignored, Steve Shaw fell back on his well worn "Evolution is true. Indeed it is.". That happened on this thread and I am responding on this thread.

The point of this thread is to examine the dichotomy between the scientific view of nature and the creationist view of nature.

There is quite a lot of territory between those two views and you have set up your fence very close to the edge of creationism. Apparently all the religions of the world (if felt in moderation), astrology, the end of the world on 21st Dec 2012 according to the Mayan calendar, the coming of Nibiru, the wisdom of David Icke are all OK by you as long as they aren't on the creationist side of the fence.

The dichotomy for me is between a view of nature based on reason and a view of nature based on faith. I'm sorry if you see that as hair-splitting. The faith side of the fence includes a great may things beside the creationists. As far as I am concerned, it includes "Evolution is true.". I don't know if you have noticed but one of the weapons used by the god botherers is to portray science as just another belief system. Don't give them evidence to justify their claim.

A while ago you said -

But Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Spot on. Unfortunately, if you accept "Evolution is true." just to keep Steve on side, you can't use that one any more.

So, just where are you building your fence?