See, the thing is Creationists always want to argue semantics and hypotheticals, but when presented with actual evidence, they tend to avoid it entirely, respond with a non sequitur or go on a Gish Gallop.
I understand that you have specific examples of scientific, biological occurrences which lead you to a belief in the theory of evolution. I also suggested earlier that I recognized asking you to put those examples into simpler terms (so that people who don't specialize in such fields could understand them) would put you at a disadvantage, because it is within the language of how you define those examples where you find your most convincing evidence (i.e. Asking why humans and chimpanzee dna could be so similar doesn't quite have the same impact as presenting a percentage).
I am not unsympathetic to your experience or your ability to interpret complex information. Your understanding of how genetics works is clearly superior to mine, and if this was a topic about how genetics works or example which support evolution, then I would not argue with you in the same way.
But, my issue is not how genetics work. Nor the validity of evolution (well, not directly). My issue from the beginning has been an attempt to clarify the meaning behind the words we use and to be consistent about that meaning. The fundamental purpose of evolution is to explain change without any need for intelligence behind it. It is an alternative to creationism. That's what natural selection is meant to be, right? Not a supernatural selection, but a natural one, based on environment, laws of nature, and mutation acting as natural selectors, alone.
Some people will say that evolution
does have room for intelligence behind it, in the sense that an intelligent being could have created and set in motion this mechanism and then stood back to watch what happens. I'm not against this idea as an interesting concept to explore, but again this would be creation (not evolution), just as the machine which always rolls random numbers on a set of dice would be created to do so regardless of any lack of maintenance along the way.
Now, I'd like to relate this to a real life example to show why I think it's important in practical terms. I'm sorry to reference you so much, speedwell, but your comments basically reflect the essence of my point. If you feel uncomfortable just let me know and I'll try to find a way to make my comments more general. In the meantime, I really appreciate your patience.
Put it all together; Being associated with anything related to creationism deeply upsets you. It was like pulling teeth to get you to even type the word on the screen once.
Your "magical book" argument (especially since it seems to have come out of nowhere) indicates to me that you've been strongly affected by the atheists, with whom you keep company, as that's an argument I typically hear from atheists.
You believe there is a God, but you do not believe what he did was "design" (I'll quote you on that if you want) which is irrational in itself, but understandable in the context; like creationism, you also don't want to be associated with anything to do with intelligent design, because those guys can also be pretty extreme.
Out of the various options available to you, evolution comes across as the most respectable. But if there is a God, create and design is what he did. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm not questioning your faith in God; I'm questioning your desire for respectability and reputation. If you were to talk about creation, and intelligence, and design, your atheist buddies may suddenly start looking at you differently, or questioning your intelligence. Never underestimate the desire to be respected, especially by those whom we already respect.
Here is an example of the subtly of divisive comments...
The TOE explains the mechanisms that bought about of the development and diversity of life on Earth, there's no need to bring meaning or purpose into it, that's what religion is for.
On the surface it sounds okay, but look deeper. Is Jimmy, an atheist, really saying he thinks religion brings meaning and purpose? Nah, of course not. If that were true he wouldn't be an atheist. So why did he say it? Isn't he damning religion through faint praise? Yep, of course he is. Otherwise he would have ended the sentence at "diversity of life on Earth".
But someone who fiercly wants the respect of his atheist buddies is unlikely to recognize it. These little comments can add up over time and even a sincere Christian can be worn down and eventually trained away from challenging them.
So, what the world sees is a Christian who promotes Evolution so that he can have the respect that comes with it, while secretly (or perhaps just extremely discreetly) believes in a creator. It reminds me of John 19:38.
