Evolution does not necessarily refute Religion

Ok, first of all, I would just like to point out something unrelated to the topic. In my first speech I asked what religion you were referring to. You responded with "it's safe to say that I am referring to Christianity in general". This is a DEBATE! Do not assume anything, ALWAYS state it in your resolution, as a debator I am going to attack anything and everything I can, and if your resolution doesn't state it and I can use that fact to attack your case then I will. Especially with topics such as this, you cannot assume that I know what religion your talking about and then once I refute your case with it, turn around and be like oh, wait, I was talking about Christianity specifically. I am not saying this just to bash you, its just a suggestion that I think maybe helpful the next time you pose a debate on here. Now, going off that same point: "...I am referring to Christianity in general" Ok, even if you are indeed referring to Christianity in general, that leaves a heck of a wide realm now doesn't it? It leaves: Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Protestant, Anglicans, Baptists, and the list could go on. Therefore, I still stand with my contention that there is no way that Evolution does not refute religion. The definition of Christianity is of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings, of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, and a person who believes in Jesus Christ, ect. Going by this we have to see that what Jesus teaches his followers, and what evolution teaches its followers are different in that evolution is science and Jesus and the Bible is faith. Therefore, they cannot go hand in hand because they are seperate entities. They clash together with one another. Following up with that point, lets look at what you yourself stated in your rebuttle: I quote "The reason people believe that evolution and religion--or, to be more specific, Christianity--can not go hand in hand is that they hold a creationist view; that is, they believe that God simply, and more or less spontaneously, created man. This would indeed refute evolution." It can go backwards as well, since religion can refute evolution, evolution therefore refutes religion. You said yourself that they cannot go hand in hand because of a creationist view that is held. Looking at their religion this view is ok because that is what they believe in is that GOD created man, not the fact that man spontanteously and SCIENTIFICALLY morphed from monkeys!! Therefore, evolution goes against what Christianity is built upon and what it teaches, therefore evolution imposes on those beliefs thereby refuting religion. Going back to my Intelligent Design argument that you tried to attack. Your definition and argument against that is simply this as I quote "The definition of Intelligent Design is as follows: "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." (dictionary.com) Thus, all Intelligent Design suggests is that the universe was created by some higher being--saying, then, that evolution was the process by which a higher being created mankind would still be in tune with Intelligent Design". Ok, lets look at the dead giveaway that this OBVIOUSLY proves what I was trying to say. You state that Intelligent Design is the theory that man was created by a higher being, and you also state that evolution is the theory that says that there was a process by which a higher being created man kind. Correction: by definition evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Therefore, Intelligent Design is man was created by a higher being (i.e. a God) and evolution is humans evolving over time, no higher being involved. It can be plainly seen that the two do indeed both go against what the other believes. So when I stated that "It would be silly to look at such a theory and say that Intelligent Design does not refute Evolution" I would be correct in standings. Also going off that, and the point that I was trying to make by saying that, its just as silly to say that a scientific theory and a religion do not refute one another, which you yourself agreed with in your last rebuttle. Henceforth, my point that evolution does indeed refute religion still stands. With the point that you yourself stated that religion cannot go hand in hand with evolution BECAUSE of the creationist views, which is true, also the fact that by definition evolution and religion are two seperate entities, and the fact that even if we are indeed talking about Christianity, evolution STILL imposes on the beliefs of the Christians, thereby making evolution refute what they believe, and eventually wrapping around to say that evolution does refute religion.