There are enormous elements of evidence demonstrating evolution, from geology, to paleontology, to fossil evidence, to carbon dating, to astronomy, to genetic TRANSITIONAL FORMS [and there's an abundance of those], to anatomical evidences. But, guess what--as it turns out, there's also psychological evidence [I'll explain down the way.]
Here's the thing. Science requires evidences [FACTS] which support THEORY. Intelligent Design (another name for CREATIONISM--actually, after Creationists lost big time in the Edwards vs Aguillard trial of 1987, SUDDENLY, they opted to CHANGE TERMINOLOGY to seem less--well, less "CREATIONISTIC"--less obviously religious.) ASKS FOR NO FACTS, NO EVIDENCE AND SIMPLY RELIES ON BELIEF: Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought to explain life devoid of all evidence. "What we have not found and do not yet understand is our "EVIDENCE'." becomes their best - indeed their only - basis for the divine AND, therefore, for explaining life forms. I refer you to the website Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, the Evolution Controversy href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
What evolution tells us is that life spreads out along endless branching pathways from any starting point. One of those tiny branches eventually led to us. We think it remarkable and wonder how it could have happened, but any fair assessment of the tree of life shows that our tiny branch is crowded into insignificance by those that bolted off in a thousand different directions. Many of those branches simply disappeared due to cataclysm or a failure in adaptation (or both). Our species, Homo sapiens, has not "triumphed" in the evolutionary struggle any more than has a squirrel, a dandelion, or a mosquito. We are all here, now, and that's what matters. We have all followed different pathways to find ourselves in the present. We are all winners in the game of natural selection. Current winners, we should be careful to say. That doesn't guarantee immortality, nor even survivability over eons of time.
The biological account of lucky historical contingencies that led to our own appearance on this planet is surely an accurate assessment. What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as incompatibility (or compatibilty, for that matter) with a divine will. In other words, whether you "BELIEVE" in God or not, in the same way that the SUPERNATURAL cannot be proved, it also cannot be DISPROVED. [The essence of SUPERnatural, is that it follows no KNOWN RULES OF NATURE.] Therefore, you are left to your own predilections--your own preferences for belief; however, attempting to show a "BELIEF" as a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY" is the old apples and oranges argument. The two are not necessarily compatible.
MOREOVER, if, (as is evidently true with the George W. Bushes--evidently, he's not the only one in the Republican party) you insist on believing in a LIMITED GOD, have at it. If there IS a God, and for me it's not necessary to always think there is, I happen to believe THAT GOD would be, and must be, infinitely infinite. And that infinity CAN INCLUDE providing for the successful diversification and NOT a preference for the development of HOMO SAPIENS. Science has NO clue about what is DARK MATTER, for example. Except that it seems to counter the effects of GRAVITY. There's one thing we DO have evidence for, though, and that is THE THING WE CALL INTELLIGENCE. Whether there is an INFINITE INTELLIGENCE [a GOD], no one knows.
Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in POWERBALL. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as necessarily either antithetical to the existence of a Creator, nor of proof of one.
Let me hasten to say, though, when you subscribe to the SUPERNATURAL construct for the allowance for life, you also subscribe to the possibility of ASTROLOGY, MYSTICISM, PHRENOLOGY, and the long list of other SUPERNATURAL pseudo sciences. Unfortunately THEY'RE NOT SCIENCE, and neither is CREATIONISM.
I promised above to explain PSYCHOLOGY as an evidence for evolution. Psychology shows that people's insecurities CAN lead to the INVENTIONS for that which makes them feel more comfortable; that which helps them feel they already have answers to everything. Science, conversely, SEARCHES, and to a Creationist (and a Christian Fundamentalist) that is tantamount to being "LOST". The feeling of being "LOST" is not far removed from the Fundamentalist's belief in "going to hell". Since psychology allows that science can be capable to explain various mental and behavioral characteristics in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity, it also can demonstrate WHY the CREATIONIST [TOTALLY DEVOID OF EVIDENCE] prefers to discount EVOLUTION [which provides MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE].
And, to be entirely accurate about it, IT ALSO CAN EXPLAIN a GEORGE W. BUSH. One of my wishes on my Christmas list is that more of the electorate might have had enough background in Psychology to detect when a candidate possesses the "Creationistic Syndrome". Much of the deep doo-doo we're in has resulted from such myopia.
I was born when I was yet quite young, and was second-born in a litter of two. My twin sister and I are not now, nor have we ever been, identical as evidenced by our differing balding patterns: she has very little facial hair. If you look us (more...)