Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[George-ananda]

I am, however, interested in finding out if there's a reason not based in any way on religious beliefs for rejecting the science of evolution. Is there any other reason?

I think one reason is that evolution has a physicalist-materialist bent that thinks it all happened physically only through random chance. The mindboggling complexity of DNA and complex life seems to argue for intelligent fostering of the process. So, I hold a position that mixes evolution with intelligent design (the type not affiliated with any conservative Christian groups).

 

[McBell]

Such as Feynman and Einstein commented to the
effect that if you can't explain in layman terms, you
don't really understand it yourself.

I have found that this is actually not true.

 

[Audie]

I have found that this is actually not true.

Or maybe...?

 

[McBell]

Or maybe...?

If you were to say that those who can not explain in layman terms make for horrible teachers, I would agree whole heartily.

But not being able to explain something they know in laymen terms is not an indication that they do not understand it.

 

[Audie]

If you were to say that those who can not explain in layman terms make for horrible teachers, I would agree whole heartily.

But not being able to explain something they know in laymen terms is not an indication that they do not understand it.

We see plenty of examples of what I
described.
I was not pronouncing it a law of nature.

 

[Pogo]

Its not an argument for existence. Its an argument concerning what's more readily apparent concerning purpose or purposelessness. Using interpretable data.
Ultimately we STILL don't know how anything happens yet. What we do know is experience and speculative calculations concerning why something happened in relation to something else. If we actually knew how things happened we wouldn't have theories. We'd just have facts.

Yep...more likely. Isn't that what this discussion is about?
Unless you can show me why or give me some argument indicating why a deliberately purposed universe is not possible then evidence of sentient being somehow directing the creation of the universe with purpose is still in the running according to some modern scientific evidences.

No, that's not what I said or am saying. There may not be any specific purpose to the universe. What I did say is that there is scientifically interpretable evidence which seems to indicate a more probable specific purposefulness to this universe. That evidence however says absolutely nothing about a specific "creator" that anyone already culturally believes in.
And by the way...given the nature of our modern era, culture has become quite a bit less of a long term factor in determining what specific "entity" one was taught to believe in will be the same one that one ends up believing in.

Not at all. Adding sentience into the mix actually lessens the complexity of the hypothesis.
Processes that develop functional things assembled through specifically directed purposefulness require much less complexity than processes which would develop -if they could- those same functioning things through purposeless coincidentally fortuitous incidents.
Probability adds complexity.
And "even less evidence" is up for discussion.

Okay? So you've referenced infinite regress. And?
Before I can comment upon your reference I need to know what you find to be wrong with infinite regress and why you think it is pertinent to our discussion.

Because your argument amounts to I think there is a purpose to everything and so I will take evidence that we don't know how or why something is as evidence of this purpose when it is not actually an evidenced argument, but an emotional one based of your prior convictions. It also suffers from the assumption of a purposer to provide this purpose which is just the first layer in the turtles all the way down argument or infinite regress if you want to make it sound better so that you can make the special pleading argument for an exception to limit it. these arguments are hundreds and thousands of years old and are no better now with the latest ambiguity in cosmological knowledge than they were when it was thought that the sun was carried across the sky in a chariot.

 

[setarcos]

Because your argument amounts to I think there is a purpose to everything and so I will take evidence that we don't know how or why something is as evidence of this purpose when it is not actually an evidenced argument, but an emotional one based of your prior convictions.

Originally I started out with a question based on data other more qualified individuals provided.
That question was...IF there IS apparent fine tuning to the cosmological constants and apparent signs of design spread throughout this cosmos - for example; the specificity of the information content in DNA or the serious consideration by contemporary scientists that we might be living in a simulation - then why disregard one hypothesis...a purposeful creation, in favor of the other...a purposeless creation, if neither has been proven confirmed?
You're actually doing what your accusing me of. And your doing that by disregarding what I've said. You're actually ignoring alternative evidences in favor of those that confirm your own biases.

it is not actually an evidenced argument,

I've provided evidence. Other qualified individuals evidence. Again, something you're apparently choosing to ignore.

It also suffers from the assumption of a purposer to provide this purpose

I'm not assuming anything. I'm questioning the implications of the data. IF the data indicates purpose then why not include that possibility in our considerations?
The fact that something which seems to indicate a purposeful design but may in fact have its origins in purposeless happenstance is a possibility due to our inherent limitations of being able to understand reality however you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the reverse is also possible.
Again...given how we currently define and recognize apparent design when we see it in nature, why shouldn't we presume design as more probable until proven otherwise?
For instance when we come across an artifact in the desert or on the ocean floor we might consider many factors in determining whether or not that artifact is natural or unnatural, a rock formation or a man made structure for instance. The specificity of the informational content it presents might be one such factor. Once we take into consideration that artifacts apparent artificiality and banning further proof of the contrary, wouldn't it behoove one to consider the stronger theory until some further data changes the conditions?

which is just the first layer in the turtles all the way down argument or infinite regress if you want to make it sound better so that you can make the special pleading argument for an exception to limit it.

Consider the "natural" world at our level of experience and the quantum world.
What supports our physical experience? Molecules. And what supports molecular structure? Atoms. And what supports atomic structure? Particles. And what supports the structure of particles? Quarks and quantum probability fields. And what apparently supports these things according to modern quantum mechanical discoveries? Consciousness.
Its not special pleading to ask why when we consider the natural world you ignore the apparent infinite regress OR exception to the limits of physical reality but you don't when you consider the hypothesis of God.
Nor is it special pleading to ask... why considering there are apparent infinities throughout reality, that one more (the infinite regress) is suddenly unacceptable? Regardless of considerations of a god. Let alone why the limits to reality cannot be found in God but can in a Godless universe. Replace God with the universe and you've got the same issues to consider do you not?

these arguments are hundreds and thousands of years old and are no better now with the latest ambiguity in cosmological knowledge than they were when it was thought that the sun was carried across the sky in a chariot.

Yes they are, but I think your misapplying what arguments, what they are truly about and their application to specific creation hypotheses by applying them to ALL "creation" hypotheses.

Not to mention your totally disregarding what may be ancient truth presented in ancient ways. While you obsess over how a people could believe that the gods ate the sun as a sign of punishment, a contemporary scientist would conclude that in 1223 BC the Syrians witnessed the moon "eat" the sun by eclipsing it. In both cases the language used describes an event that happened.
A culture expresses truth within the language of its time. Poetry contains a lot of truth presented in an unscientific way.
Sometimes the language falls short but the truth remains.
It matters little if a chariot pulls the sun across the sky or the earths rotation upon its axis does. In both cases we are still left with the sun travelling across the sky in relation to each observers current disposition. Maybe, if this IS a simulation, the sun doesn't even exist outside of our own simulated delusions. Who speaks the truth in that case? The scientist or the ancient Syrian?

 

[setarcos]

Such as Feynman and Einstein commented to the
effect that if you can't explain in layman terms, you
don't really understand it yourself.

Check the contorted obscurantism of our
" philosophers".

Yes and Feynman in particular retorted about the findings of quantum mechanics..."...nobody really understands it." What do we do with that?
Its stranger than we CAN think. Yet for some reason many people insist on excluding God, for some reason, from that strangeness.

 

[setarcos]

I get bored quick, with people who
just say things.

Lol, I just caught your reply. You must get pretty bored, pretty quickly when you say something.
I personally take exception to your implications. Why would you care to expend the energy to insult someone instead of productively engaging with them? Especially when you yourself do exactly what you just stated..."just say things".
Mediocre minds get bored. Great minds engage what catches their attention. That's mostly because great minds know just how little they actually know. Everything from a particle of soil, a raindrop, to a cosmological phenomenon can capture their attention while a bored mind fails to see the exciting potentials happening all around them.

 

[Audie]

Lol, I just caught your reply. You must get pretty bored, pretty quickly when you say something.
I personally take exception to your implications. Why would you care to expend the energy to insult someone instead of productively engaging with them? Especially when you yourself do exactly what you just stated..."just say things".
Mediocre minds get bored. Great minds engage what catches their attention. That's mostly because great minds know just how little they actually know. Everything from a particle of soil, a raindrop, to a cosmological phenomenon can capture their attention while a bored mind fails to see the exciting potentials happening all around them.

I just say things?

You have an example to back this
charge, or, are you just saying things?

"productively engsge"!

Lest you display hypocrisy along with calumny and
falsity.

 

[Audie]

Yes and Feynman in particular retorted about the findings of quantum mechanics..."...nobody really understands it." What do we do with that?
Its stranger than we CAN think. Yet for some reason many people insist on excluding God, for some reason, from that strangeness.

You really cant figure a reason

Maybe from lack of data? You got data?

Would'st you try to factor in "god", as a fisheries
scientist doing population dynamics
in Loch Ness?

You seem to confuse " not including"
with " excluding".

Eze to do when there's agenda.

 

[Pogo]

Originally I started out with a question based on data other more qualified individuals provided.
That question was...IF there IS apparent fine tuning to the cosmological constants and apparent signs of design spread throughout this cosmos - for example; the specificity of the information content in DNA or the serious consideration by contemporary scientists that we might be living in a simulation - then why disregard one hypothesis...a purposeful creation, in favor of the other...a purposeless creation, if neither has been proven confirmed?
You're actually doing what your accusing me of. And your doing that by disregarding what I've said. You're actually ignoring alternative evidences in favor of those that confirm your own biases.

I've provided evidence. Other qualified individuals evidence. Again, something you're apparently choosing to ignore.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm questioning the implications of the data. IF the data indicates purpose then why not include that possibility in our considerations?
The fact that something which seems to indicate a purposeful design but may in fact have its origins in purposeless happenstance is a possibility due to our inherent limitations of being able to understand reality however you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the reverse is also possible.
Again...given how we currently define and recognize apparent design when we see it in nature, why shouldn't we presume design as more probable until proven otherwise?
For instance when we come across an artifact in the desert or on the ocean floor we might consider many factors in determining whether or not that artifact is natural or unnatural, a rock formation or a man made structure for instance. The specificity of the informational content it presents might be one such factor. Once we take into consideration that artifacts apparent artificiality and banning further proof of the contrary, wouldn't it behoove one to consider the stronger theory until some further data changes the conditions?


Consider the "natural" world at our level of experience and the quantum world.
What supports our physical experience? Molecules. And what supports molecular structure? Atoms. And what supports atomic structure? Particles. And what supports the structure of particles? Quarks and quantum probability fields. And what apparently supports these things according to modern quantum mechanical discoveries? Consciousness.
Its not special pleading to ask why when we consider the natural world you ignore the apparent infinite regress OR exception to the limits of physical reality but you don't when you consider the hypothesis of God.
Nor is it special pleading to ask... why considering there are apparent infinities throughout reality, that one more (the infinite regress) is suddenly unacceptable? Regardless of considerations of a god. Let alone why the limits to reality cannot be found in God but can in a Godless universe. Replace God with the universe and you've got the same issues to consider do you not?

Yes they are, but I think your misapplying what arguments, what they are truly about and their application to specific creation hypotheses by applying them to ALL "creation" hypotheses.

Not to mention your totally disregarding what may be ancient truth presented in ancient ways. While you obsess over how a people could believe that the gods ate the sun as a sign of punishment, a contemporary scientist would conclude that in 1223 BC the Syrians witnessed the moon "eat" the sun by eclipsing it. In both cases the language used describes an event that happened.
A culture expresses truth within the language of its time. Poetry contains a lot of truth presented in an unscientific way.
Sometimes the language falls short but the truth remains.
It matters little if a chariot pulls the sun across the sky or the earths rotation upon its axis does. In both cases we are still left with the sun travelling across the sky in relation to each observers current disposition. Maybe, if this IS a simulation, the sun doesn't even exist outside of our own simulated delusions. Who speaks the truth in that case? The scientist or the ancient Syrian?

Ok, here is a purpose, the HS gods are playing a D+D game in the back of the room instead of playing attention and one player plays his snarkiness card causing his opponent to lose goodness for the next five universes the other creates. He did this purposefully since he didn't have to so there is purpose in the universe. Is this really a useful conjecture based on nothing more than the idea that things that seem improbable might have a cause?

No, it is a desire to find a reason for an already conceived notion without any real evidence for your version of a purposer or mine.

Find evidence of your purposer, don't just assign events you don't understand to a faith entity.

 

[setarcos]

I just say things?

You have an example to back this
charge, or, are you just saying things?

Yes...you just say things under the same presumptions a lot of us have some of the time.
That is you just presume the person your talking to knows how you came to your conclusions.
For example...

Neither good nor valid.

Why isn't it good? And what's invalid about the statements your referring to? You offer nothing here but your own opinion without substantiation.
And this one...

Wrong on another point too.

There are mental tasks at which
other apes greatly exceed human ability.

You've concluded that another point was wrong then give an unsubstantiated statement to back it up. Where's your references, your citations?
What mental tasks do other apes exceed humans in ability? Let alone greatly. And what studies have shown this? There's nothing here but "saying things".
And how about this one...

We see plenty of examples of what I
described.
I was not pronouncing it a law of nature.

Do we? You've given no examples. No references. You've again done nothing but "said something".
Are we to just take your word for it as the gospel truth? Should you mine then?
I've also noticed that you often jab at others with insults instead of simply reasoning with them. Your by no means the only one that does this here but why be a mental pinhead with these unnecessary insults instead of just being a cognitive companion in the search for truth?

"productively engsge"!

Yes...PRODUCTIVELY. You pretty nearly eliminate any hope for any productive advancement towards the goal of mutual agreement in a discussion when you insert insults into the conversation. Let alone just dismissing the other sides replies all together.
And by the way, its like your throwing fast balls without a care as to if someone gets hurt AND your doing it in your own glass house. You should be careful lest your house crumbles around you.
For instance you often criticize others concerning vocabulary but your own grammar is often hard to follow.
Why do you choose to criticize someone's vocabulary and thereby alienate them rather than just explaining why you think they are wrong or need to reformulate their phrase to be better understood?
Are you here to expand your own understanding regardless of who it comes from or just expound upon what you think you already know as a fact? We should all ask ourselves that question before we reply to others.

Lest you display hypocrisy along with calumny and
falsity.

Is this a grammar thing again? I'm not sure what your saying. Perhaps you could phrase it better because "Lest"... doesn't flow correctly with your other statements in this reply. You haven't made a prior warning accusation towards me that I should be wary of, which "Lest" requires. See my use above as an example. Its like you had a mental thought concerning my possible hypocrisy, calumny and falsity but you forgot to put it in your reply to me.
Let this be an example...we can waist so much time being rude to each other over the peccadillos we all suffer from or we can have a pleasant conversation about existence.
I know which one I prefer.

You really cant figure a reason

? I said what I said didn't I?
I have not encountered a plausible reason to exclude a sentient being from being involved in purposefully creating our universe. I have encountered reasons this universe seems to be purposeful and yes I have given some of those reasons here.
If you have one I am willing to receive it, think about it, and respond concerning it if I have counterpoints or questions.

Maybe from lack of data? You got data?

I have personal data but that would be irrelevant to you wouldn't it.
I've given a few examples of other peoples data which I think would be pertinent to your question. Have you read my previous posts about DNA and fine tuning in the cosmos? I'm willing to discuss that data if you would care to give your opinions.

Would'st you try to factor in "god", as a fisheries
scientist doing population dynamics
in Loch Ness?

Depends on what questions you might include the concept of God in as concerns ichthyology in Loch Ness. I need not include thoughts of God in every little study of its creation if the purpose of that study is to understand how that creation works in relation to itself but not to God.
If I wish to study how a newly discovered machine works I don't necessarily have to get to know the inventor to do that. I may not have the intelligence or ability to create such a machine myself but I could certainly learn about the thing by studying it.

You seem to confuse " not including"
with " excluding".

Can you clarify for me how you came to this conclusion? As it stands here, your just saying things.

Eze to do when there's agenda.

Is it? And the use of agenda here is meaningless if it is supposed to be used to draw a logical conclusion. EVERYONE has an agenda when they engage in discourse. We are born with agendas and we'll die with agendas. What is your agenda? What do you think mine is?

 

[Audie]

Yes...you just say things under the same presumptions a lot of us have some of the time.
That is you just presume the person your talking to knows how you came to your conclusions.
For example...

Why isn't it good? And what's invalid about the statements your referring to? You offer nothing here but your own opinion without substantiation.
And this one...

You've concluded that another point was wrong then give an unsubstantiated statement to back it up. Where's your references, your citations?
What mental tasks do other apes exceed humans in ability? Let alone greatly. And what studies have shown this? There's nothing here but "saying things".
And how about this one...

Do we? You've given no examples. No references. You've again done nothing but "said something".
Are we to just take your word for it as the gospel truth? Should you mine then?
I've also noticed that you often jab at others with insults instead of simply reasoning with them. Your by no means the only one that does this here but why be a mental pinhead with these unnecessary insults instead of just being a cognitive companion in the search for truth?


Yes...PRODUCTIVELY. You pretty nearly eliminate any hope for any productive advancement towards the goal of mutual agreement in a discussion when you insert insults into the conversation. Let alone just dismissing the other sides replies all together.
And by the way, its like your throwing fast balls without a care as to if someone gets hurt AND your doing it in your own glass house. You should be careful lest your house crumbles around you.
For instance you often criticize others concerning vocabulary but your own grammar is often hard to follow.
Why do you choose to criticize someone's vocabulary and thereby alienate them rather than just explaining why you think they are wrong or need to reformulate their phrase to be better understood?
Are you here to expand your own understanding regardless of who it comes from or just expound upon what you think you already know as a fact? We should all ask ourselves that question before we reply to others.

Is this a grammar thing again? I'm not sure what your saying. Perhaps you could phrase it better because "Lest"... doesn't flow correctly with your other statements in this reply. You haven't made a prior warning accusation towards me that I should be wary of, which "Lest" requires. See my use above as an example. Its like you had a mental thought concerning my possible hypocrisy, calumny and falsity but you forgot to put it in your reply to me.
Let this be an example...we can waist so much time being rude to each other over the peccadillos we all suffer from or we can have a pleasant conversation about existence.
I know which one I prefer.

? I said what I said didn't I?
I have not encountered a plausible reason to exclude a sentient being from being involved in purposefully creating our universe. I have encountered reasons this universe seems to be purposeful and yes I have given some of those reasons here.
If you have one I am willing to receive it, think about it, and respond concerning it if I have counterpoints or questions.

I have personal data but that would be irrelevant to you wouldn't it.
I've given a few examples of other peoples data which I think would be pertinent to your question. Have you read my previous posts about DNA and fine tuning in the cosmos? I'm willing to discuss that data if you would care to give your opinions.

Depends on what questions you might include the concept of God in as concerns ichthyology in Loch Ness. I need not include thoughts of God in every little study of its creation if the purpose of that study is to understand how that creation works in relation to itself but not to God.
If I wish to study how a newly discovered machine works I don't necessarily have to get to know the inventor to do that. I may not have the intelligence or ability to create such a machine myself but I could certainly learn about the thing by studying it.


Can you clarify for me how you came to this conclusion? As it stands here, your just saying things.

Is it? And the use of agenda here is meaningless if it is supposed to be used to draw a logical conclusion. EVERYONE has an agenda when they engage in discourse. We are born with agendas and we'll die with agendas. What is your agenda? What do you think mine is?

Hmm.

It's 4 a.m. here, so...

I will respond to just 2 things-

" just saying things".
I dont supply references and footnotes when i say something. Those so inclined can Google for themselvesves.
Or I can, and post it.

But- I don't make up anything; things such
as my comment on other apes' mental abilities
I can back up with solid research.

So- no, I don't JUST say things.

As for what I think is the essence of your
post: point well taken.

I've been quite unpleasant lately.
Having difficult people / situations to
deal with in Hong Kong Is no reason to
be rude to someone half way around the world.
For all types and amount of unpleasant
I aimed at you, I am sorry.

Whether there's a " reset" for further talk
is up to you, but I acknowledge my clear need to
stop indulging my worst nature.

Give me a chance and see if my apology is
sincere by how well I succeed.

 

[setarcos]

Is this really a useful conjecture based on nothing more than the idea that things that seem improbable might have a cause?

Depends on what you mean by "useful". The proper conjecture is that their is apparent purpose to this universe which implies something that created that purpose. How that purpose was given is irrelevant and beyond our abilities to independently know.
There is no question that things that seem improbable but happen have causes.
The real question is - How improbable or probable are those things? - and what do we do with that information? What drives our conclusions based on incomplete data?
Used to be that people concluded there was no evidence given which implied no/low probability which then drove conclusions.
Now, with modern advances in science -cosmologically necessary constant magnitudes, and quantum mechanical determinations of the necessity of conscience interference in determining reality coupled with the specificity of the necessary information content found in various biological molecular structures like DNA we have evidence given to imply some amount of probability which then drives modern conclusions.
However, sides haven't changed much. Now, those that believed in some purpose to the universe have something to point at while those that didn't believe simply take that something and render that probability less important than continuing to conclude that no evidence has been given.
Now, its promoted that even IF conclusions can be made that certain discoveries seem to indicate that purpose is more probable than purposelessness we may still disregard those discoveries because improbable purposeless events can happen all the time and since they can happen all the time we may conclude that purposelessness is the only thing that happens all the time. Sounds logical -except that its not.

No, it is a desire to find a reason for an already conceived notion without any real evidence for your version of a purposer or mine.

Of course its a desire to find evidence for preconceived notions no matter how those notions arose in the first place. That goes for scientific endeavors as well.
That's how humans interact with reality.
In the beginning of every human endeavor experience always precedes evidence and by experience I mean an initiation of an intuitive leap. I believe every original idea is a result of some experience and every experience results in an intuitive analysis and all such analysis results in deductive or inductive critique of that intuition based in experience.
Of course many scientists are fond of touting that science goes where the evidence leads it but they disregard the fact that experience begins the game in the first place and will end the game in the last case. Science is only a tool but those that wield that tool do so while being directed by experience if they are to derive any semblance of meaning from using that tool.

Find evidence of your purposer, don't just assign events you don't understand to a faith entity.

The evidence for a "creator" is given by any evidence we may find which indicates purpose to the universe. What do you mean by "assign events you don't understand to a faith entity"?
I need not understand the calculations Penrose used to come to his conclusions in order to understand the implications of those conclusions. On the other hand...what evidence do you offer to show what I don't actually understand that you presumably do?
And, by the way, science IS faith based. Every argument given in science must be derived at some point axiomatically and we all know Kurt Gödel proved the axiomatic limitations of mathematics. Every time we experience the results of an experiment we assign the cause of those results to a "faith entity" of sorts. Do any of the subatomic particles actually exist as conceived? How do we know? No one has actually experienced the true nature of one of them. We can only experience them through the interpretive lenses of tools.
They are all merely - faith entities - place holders used to cognitively explain what we can experience in relation to what we can't in reality.
What do you think? Does anything I'm saying seem reasonable to you?

 

[setarcos]

Hmm.

It's 4 a.m. here, so...

I will respond to just 2 things-

" just saying things".
I dont supply references and footnotes when i say something. Those so inclined can Google for themselvesves.
Or I can, and post it.

But- I don't make up anything; things such
as my comment on other apes' mental abilities
I can back up with solid research.

So- no, I don't JUST say things.

As for what I think is the essence of your
post: point well taken.

I've been quite unpleasant lately.
Having difficult people / situations to
deal with in Hong Kong Is no reason to
be rude to someone half way around the world.
For all types and amount of unpleasant
I aimed at you, I am sorry.

Whether there's a " reset" for further talk
is up to you, but I acknowledge my clear need to
stop indulging my worst nature.

Give me a chance and see if my apology is
sincere by how well I succeed.

My god...I am humbled by your response here. You've really shocked me with what I expected. You've shown me more gracious courage here than I have seen in most by meeting me where I am instead of from where you are in your current circumstances. I would be proud to emulate such behavior. A few billion more individuals with your humility and self reflective abilities and I'd have hope for this planets future.
Thank you for your apology and thank you for your example for us all.

 

[Dimi95]

Is it simply because you would rather disregard the "God hypothesis" than the "natural hypothesis" even though the latter is more unlikely mathematically?

Hi
I would like to ask you a question , but
can you first define what do you mean by natural hypothesis?

 

[sayak83]

Actually I don't think so. But -- we all make choices as to what we believe. Some say they believe in God and evolution, but do not offer any reason for believing in God as they put forth evolution as the reason we are here..
So I'll state it again -- I used to believe in evolution. Now I see there are really big gaps in the theory, in fact, little to no real evidence. Fossils are not evidence of the actual generation. And by evidence I mean actually seeing the proof (yes, I know, no proof in science, etc. so anyway the evidence put forth is not proof and does not mean that the theory is true), that fish evolved eventually to become humans. Or dinosaurs evolving to eventually become birds. Simply nothing beyond conjecture over fossils as if that means dinosaurs evolved to become birds and fish evolved to become humans.

I do not see any contradiction between believing in God and evolution. In monism, the material universe and its laws and transformations are aspects of God Itself, just as consciousness and Self is another aspect of It. The first, in Hinduism is envisioned as the active female aspect of God (Prakriti) while the latter the static male aspect of God (purusha). But fundamentally they are conjoined and just two ways we perceive the same One Being.
That's one answer from one great religion. Others exist from other religion. Your inability to reconcile the two (materialistic nature as seen from science and spiritual reality as seen in religion) is a problem peculiar to your beliefs.

 

[Audie]

My god...I am humbled by your response here. You've really shocked me with what I expected. You've shown me more gracious courage here than I have seen in most by meeting me where I am instead of from where you are in your current circumstances. I would be proud to emulate such behavior. A few billion more individuals with your humility and self reflective abilities and I'd have hope for this planets future.
Thank you for your apology and thank you for your example for us all.

I'm not actually a very nice person, but you know,
maybe i can live up to your undeserved compliment

 

[YoursTrue]

I think one reason is that evolution has a physicalist-materialist bent that thinks it all happened physically only through random chance. The mindboggling complexity of DNA and complex life seems to argue for intelligent fostering of the process. So, I hold a position that mixes evolution with intelligent design (the type not affiliated with any conservative Christian groups).

With regard to your first statement that evolution has a "physicalist-materialist bent that thinks it all happened physically only through random chance," has anyone commented on that point without diverting to other possibilities? Insofar as the promoters and believers in the theory of evolution, do you or others think that your analysis of it would be true as far as they are concerned? (physicalist-materialist, that is -- whatever that means...but I think I understand some of your thought there -- at least about physical means...not sure how materialism fits in that, but I think I understand the gist of what you are saying here...)