The Darwinist world-view however is founded upon the unproven claim of gradualism. Since gradualism does not proveably exsist in nature, and requires faith to accept, it qualifies as supernatural.</blockquote>
Nope, you don't get that one. To some extent, what you say is true. No scientific theory is ever "proven". It's more a matter of "this is the best we've got right now".
But it's completely disingenuous to lump evolution with religion and say neither has "proven" it's case so both are equally valid.
Evolution has boxes and boxes of hard physical evidence behind it. True, we cannot definitively say that x happens <i>exactly</i> this way or that way, but we know absolutely, positively that we're in the right ballpark because all the physical evidence says so.
Against this, religion has, what, exactly?
<i>Warm, fuzzy feelings</i>?.
Not good enough when you're going up against science because <i>science has all the friggin' dead bodies</i>. Dead bodies are about as un-super-natural as it's possible to get.
And you can't just point to the dead bodies and say "Nope, that doesn't exist. Proves nothing", because guess what? The dead bodies don't spontaneously go away, no matter how hard you argue. Noooo, if you want them to go away, you have have to <i>explain</i> them away. Go ahead, I'm waiting. I've been waiting two decades.
So no, Collin, it's not the same. You don't get to use the "neither side has 'proved' it's point" argument. Science has put a lot of evidence on the table and still admits it has things to learn, but ID has provided <i>nothing</i>.