Archon:
To define my terms (and be more specific):
By Agnostic, I meant "Strong Agnostic", ie, someone who is not only unsure, but someone who believes that it is impossible to determine whether or not any sort of "supernaturalism" exists.
Now, I did not mean to imply,
at all that Agnostics must imply Evolution. However, I think it is critically important to the Strong Agnostic position that Evolution be an acceptable theory; without it, there is no remotely feasible alternative to supernaturalism (what Lewis would have called "Pantheism", though one could be "agnostic" about accepting which "supernaturalism" - however, that doesn't work as well for Strong Agnosticism).
I was also speaking of the current state. I thought that would be obvious that I was not referring to some obscure possibility, but things as they
are.
You seem to have responded to my comments without needing a definition for "acceptable"; you seem to have no difficulty understanding what I meant, from your responses, even if you take issue with the fact that I included Agnostics.
But, again, be it "god' in any other form by any other name (a universal fungus isn't so far from concepts of Brahman, is it?
), discounting Evolution means accepting some sort of ID. And for most Strong Agnostics, that's unacceptable.