The problem is that there is no substantive evidence for evolution. It is all guesswork about something that might have or probably happened.
False.
We can see it happen on small scale in real time. Significant changes in simple fast breeding organisms, or small scale adaptations in slower breeding creatures like humans.
All evidence comes down to "might have or probably happened", that's what evidence is. Guesswork is a misleading term, conclusions from evidence is more appropriate.
Actually, those who are working so hard at preserving endangered species of animals and bird are denying evolution, because they are working against natural selection in which it is the survival of the fittest. If a species is unable to survive in the natural, then isn't that how evolution works?
Evolution is a description of how the natural world works, not a source of moral or practical guidance. (The laws of gravity don't mean I should throw people out windows).
Evolution explains why after extinctions free up niches in the natural world other species adapt and diversify to exploit those opportunities.
That another species will eventually take its place doesn't make its loss any less tragic any more then a child's death being meaningless because kids are born every day.
The issue is that when godless scientists refuse to let the divine have a foot in the door, evolution is their only answer. But evolution is not a science because science has to be based on empirical evidence, which is non-existent for it.
The fossil record; the patterns of genetic similarity; real time examples of mutation, adaptation and speciation... all absolutely empirical evidence.
Godless scientists is also a false statement, people of all religious backgrounds accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life.
But if you would like the divine to have a foot in the door of science... can you describe how the dive can be tested or falsified? Because if there isn't a way to test it, then it has no place in science.
Creation is also not a science, because it involves God who created everything out of nothing in six 24 hour days. That is a supernatural miracle and cannot be supported by science.
I absolutely agree... however, it leads to the conclusion that being all powerful an able to create the world and life in it in any way, he chose to make it in such a way that leads to the conclusion that it is billions of years old and that life all evolved from a common ancestor.
So, it comes down to whether we believe the first two chapters of Genesis or not. If we can't believe those two chapters as being the true historical account of the creation of the universe, then we can't rely on the rest of the Bible, including the promises of God involving our salvation. Therefore, we can't have any confidence that we are going to experience anything after death but absolute oblivion. After all, if we are just a bag of molecules and nothing more, what is the point of all our planning for the future, our aspirations, and quest for self-improvement and a better world, if at the end of our lives all we do is to rot in the grave and nothing more?
So, deciding not to accept the first two chapters of Genesis as literal, accurate history, opens up a whole can of worms which we cannot resolve.
Personally I don't think how nice something sounds is a reasonable basis of how true something is.
I do think I'm doomed to eventually cease to exist, that's no reason not to be as good a person as I can and to try to make the world a little better. You don't have to get a reward or see the results to want to do the right thing.
