Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion

Okay, what this debate comes down to is this: It has been established that faith and science are two seperate entities. If it were to be proven that God played a role in evolution and created it to create man then it would be proven that religion beliefs are wrong. Also it would eliminate the line that has been created to distinguish faith and science, and faith itself would become a science. In order for any of this to happen, we would have to first prove scientifically that a God exists, which can not happen, therefore, we have to continue to have that distinguishable line between faith and science. Looking at the first argument in your rebuttle which states: ". .. just because one is a Christian does not mean that their beliefs must only be what Christ taught. For example, I believe that 1+1=2, yet nowhere in the Bible does He teach this. Does this mean that I cannot believe in math, then? As convenient as this would be for me, it's simply not the case. One's beliefs are not "either/or" when referring to faith and science. It is fully plausible--indeed, an actuality--that one can have faith for some things and have knowledge of others". First of all, what does math have to do with religion? Math goes hand in hand with science, the Bible doesn't have anything to do with math, so I am not sure where you intended to go with the comment. Also, if one has faith of something, then yes it is either/or because faith is something that cannot be proven. Once it can be proven, it is a science, and we have already established that there must continue to be a distinguishable line between science and faith for these reasons and the reasons presented above. Your next argument states: "Just because something happened scientifically does not mean that it was not done by God. Consider the possibility that God -only- works through science. At first glance, this seems absurd--all the many miracles Christ and the ancient prophets performed could never be explained by science. Well, this only pertains to the science that we know. There is still so much that we cannot even begin to comprehend; how can we thus say for certain that God and His miracles do not break and are not outside of the laws of science? " Yet again, there is the established line between God and Science, just as with science and faith. Science is proven, God is not. Because we cannot comprehend as you say we cannot then this obviously proves the definition of science, therefore not being able to fall under the definition of faith. You can have faith in science, or you can have faith in a God, something that cannot be proven. By definition you can only truly believe in one or the other. Science or faith. If religion were based on science so many things would be different in the foundations and the beliefs and the attitudes. There are very few people who can ligitemtly claim that they believe in both science and pertain faith in a God. Science proves and disproves things, God cannot be proven or not proven, therefore science (including evolution which is a science) cannot go hand in hand with faith and religion. Ending in evolution refuting what religion is about, teaches, and was founded on. Looking at your next point which says: "Of course, one may say that if we can understand how God works, there would be no faith for him. However, knowing how something happened still does not prove whether or not there is a higher intelligence/power that is causing it to happen. Thus, even if we may find, as absolute fact, how every miracle and work of God was performed, we still have not proven that God exists, and thus there is still need for faith. " Because there is really no way to establish how every miracle and work of God is performed. Therefore, here again, we have to turn to the line between faith and science. In your final argument you state: "What I'm arguing is why can't there have been a higher being involved? Why can't one believe that, perhaps, God guided evolution--caused the genetic mutations, allowed some species to survive while others died out--until man was created? If He guided evolution in such a way that He caused man to eventually be created, gradually over time, step by step, certainly we can still say that God created man. " These are hypothetical questions. They cannot be proved. One cannot believe in both Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution. Your questions are a matter of Intelligent Design, which has not been classified as a scientific theory. If a higher power was involved in the "push" of evolution happening, then the theory you are discussing is no longer evolution. It is Intelligent Design, which does NOT fall under science, and it also has been debated upon as to if it refutes religion. So therefore, if your questions are to be presented in this debate, you have proved your own resolution moot, because we are discussing a completly different theory. So, looking the arguments presented, I strongly urge a con vote. According to the final focus in this debate, Pro is asking questions that focus on a different theory, the theory of Intelligent Design, also looking at the fact that it has been stressed and focused on that there is indeed a line between science and faith, there has to be. Also looking at the fact that Science is and religion have to be seperate in one's mind, otherwise, God would have to be scientifically proven to exist, which can't happen, because he is God, and the world needs faith. Given the arguments presented, there are many things that the Pro presents that cannot be voted on in this debate because of the mere fact that he is either discussing a different theory, or he is crossing the line of what is faith and what is science.