I will answer the question in the first post. I have to tell of the time I believe I truly did learn about evolution. You see, I had believed in evolution since about 12 years old. Then years later I became a Christian. One day I saw the obvious: Evolution and the Bible's account of creation were totally incompatible. I remember exactly what I thought, "I can't see how evolution could possibly not be true." But I decided, to be fair minded, to look outside the box.
I got a book by a science award winner who used to mock his students in a university if they didn't believe in evolution, a Dr. Gary Parker who later rejected evolution and wrote Creation Facts of Life. I felt I really learned about evolution then, from that book! Did it make me feel uncomfortable? Well, just a tiny bit because I fell off the couch laughing at how absurd the theory seemed to me by the time I finished it.
I got very interested in the topic after that and learned a lot more about evolution. I'll sum some of it up below. Did it make me feel uncomfortable? Well, not in the way the OP thinks, but it did make me concerned for our populace.
I got very interested in peer reviews for evolutionism. Here is just a smattering of what I discovered.
They say peer reviews prove evolution. Do they mean like when they told you that the dark Peppered Moth was showing evolution, but, there had always been dark moths and it was exactly the same species as before the industrial revolution, and still exactly the same species as its lighter variety?
You mean like when tons of peer reviews hailed the "extinct" Coelacanth as a "transition" between fish and tetrapods, and then a live one was found and it was nothing but 100% a fish? You can see the pretty blue fish swimming around on You Tube.
You mean like when they tell you that antibiotic resistant bacteria, or nylon eating bacteria, are showing evolution, but they are still just bacteria? Or, if not, what non bacterial type life form are they "evolving" into?
Bacteria have been observed since 1670 and ancient fossilized examples have been found. No matter how much they change, they stay bacteria in their bacterial domain. Always.
You mean like when they told you that the tonsils and appendix were "vestigial" based on no evidence whatsoever? The children who were most likely to suffer from the polio epidemic last century were those who had their "useless, vestigial" tonsils removed. Real science has shown that the tonsils and the appendix are highly useful for immunological purposes, particularly for children.
You mean like the peer reviews about the "horse evolution" series which shows animals from different continents, supposedly all connected, with toe numbers that go up and down until we get to the modern day horse?
You mean like the glut of peer reviews that say - just as they did with Coelacanth - that Tiktaalik is a wonderful transition from fish to tetrapod? But check it out on Wiki. It is described as an extinct species of...lobe finned FISH. Period. The evidence that it had a single descendant that was significantly different from it in any way whatsoever it nowhere to be found.
You mean like the peer reviews on Miller & Urey in the 60s who claimed they had shown life could come from inorganic material because they got some amino acids? The kinds of amino acids they got kill life. Further there are gazillons of amino acids on asteroids, on some planetary bodies, in supplement bottles, and all over planet earth. Not one has ever done anything to cause a single cell to spring into life. Not even close. They all stay nothing but amino acids.
Mark Armitage discovered some soft tissue in a dino bone - one of many such examples being discovered more and more - and had that published in two standard science journals. Shortly thereafter someone from his university stormed into his office saying they were having no religious fanaticism in their school, and he was fired. He had never even mentioned religion in his two peer reviewed articles, but oh well, he sued the university and won.
Contrary to what many think, creationists do get published and peer reviewed in standard science journals. However, this is not common as there is an extreme prejudice against them. For example, there are the science mags that flat out say "We will NOT publish any creationist writings!" After that they turn around and say "How can you trust them? They never get published!"
I also learned about logical fallacies and became convinced evolutionism is founded on them, especially Presuming Omniscience and Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, but many more logical fallacies.
No learning about evolution has not made me uncomfortable in the way assumed in the OP. It has given me more faith in the reliability of the Bible though!
As I said on another string I'm not going to debate. I have found it useless. "Let those see who have eyes to see."
Blessings and bye!
