I still don't know what we're discussing or why. I don't know what you consider conclusive evidence in this context, or how conclusive you think evidence can or need be. I've explained to you that as an agnostic atheist, I make no claims about non-earthborn intelligent designers existing or not, I consider the idea of the supernatural incoherent and expect anything that exists to be a part of nature, the theory of evolution does a great job and can be called correct or proved beyond a reasonable doubt (a deceptive intelligent designer is not an option worth thinking about except in discussions of falsification of the theory and what would by default replace it).
The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. If you think that you can make a valuable addition or correction to it, please do. The kinds of things you've been discussing add nothing of value that I can discern.
How about I just stipulate to everything you've said and we move on? Nothing is certain, all logical possibilities remain logical possibilities however unlikely until shown to be impossible or not actual, maybe there's more to evolution than genetic variation and natural selection, maybe the eye didn't evolve as a series of steps each conferring a competitive advantage, maybe there are alternatives I'm unaware of. Now we're done - unless you've been holding out on your purpose here and intend to go further, which I wouldn't be interested in at this point given our history and my repeated requests for what that might be. For you to spring something new here now puts you in the same category as an Amway salesperson who cons you to go out for a meal just to spring an unstated, stealth agenda on you - a poor strategy for promoting anything.
So done then, right?
Of course, what you see is a mess - consistent with Abrahamic nihilism. This is what keeps many clinging to their faith life it's a lifeboat.
Following biblical scripture gave man the Middle Ages, with its pseudosciences and authoritarian regimes allegedly sanctioned by a deity (divine right of kings). People were subjects living under the thumb of kings and dying left and right of infectious disease and food poisoning, many children not making it to two years, and many of their mothers dying in childbirth. Is that what you meant by the height of wisdom and understanding of the divine physician? He lost a lot of patients needlessly.
The Enlightenment saved man from the medieval world. Humanism and Enlightenment values replaced that with something much, much, much better. We received science, which has made life longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, more safe, and more interesting, as with the Internet and RF. And it transformed subjects without rights into autonomous citizens. It's not hard to find examples of cultures minimally influenced by the Enlightenment, places where they still cut off hands, push people off of towers, or burn them alive in cages for impiety - things the West also did with its inquisitions and witch hangings until conditioned by humanist values.
Even today, whatever you call the alternative to what you call materialist philosophy, which I call faith-based thought, continues to damage the world. Because of it, America has Christian homophobia and is attempting to turn women into incubators for God. You've got people making decisions about vaccines by faith and dying and harming others around them. You've got election hoaxers willing to overturn democracy by faith. You've got climate denial based in faith. My tradition opposes all of that. Yours promotes that kind of thinking. Yet you want to blame humanist philosophy - a belief which you also hold by faith.
