For those who want to believe in Creation, it seems nothing will change their mind. In the past, humans didn’t understand the physical and biological basis of life and reproduction, It seemed miraculous. It was natural to believe it had a religious basis.
Today, we understand a great deal of how life works. One might think that greater understanding would reduce disbelief in scientific explanations. But, no. Instead we have the feeble argument that something this complex couldn’t have arisen naturally.
That argument is nothing but empty words. How in the world can anyone say what could or could not have come about naturally during the billions of years since life began on earth? Man’s intuition is not strong enough to grasp how long a period nature had to create life as it exists today.
The proponderance of evidence is on our side. What do the Evos have? What is their so-called “theory” is based on? Not only do they have zero evidence of macro-evolution ever happening, they also believe that life comes from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, super-sophisticated functionally specified digital codes from inanimate matter, etc, etc. ALL of the actual empirical evidence suggest just the opposite. Indeed, wasn’t it Richard Dawkins, the high priest of the Temple of Darwin, who declared that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose...but then turns around and tells us it is all just an illusion created by Darwin’s braindead natural selection god? LOL!
1. Your first point assumes a Hegelian view of the development of human reason. It is a convenient view which places the 21st century man as the smartest to ever walk the face of the Earth. It appeals to a man’s pride, so it is not to difficult to accept.
2. The second argument is called an “argument by assertion”, which appears to be the only form of reasoning being taught in the universities today. The “feeble” argument asks the question, given the complexity we see in every living thing, how much time is required for every undirected random mutation to occur at precisely the right moment, in conjunction with other random mutations, to build irreducibly complex functions, given the the probability of this not occurring, amongst reversible organic chemistry? This is an easy model to build and test, so why argue it, just go test the hypothesis. I am sure there is a computer somewhere with adequate memory and CPU to test this idea?
3. We cannot give God any credit, but it is okay if “nature” creates everything? What is nature in this context, another agent cause? What was wrong with the first one?
Nothing ever will. They despise a thinking human, or the search for advancements in science. They would rather listen to someone, anyone who will confirm their narrow, 'God did it, and if you don't believe us you're a liberal and can't be a Christian.' point of view. If science doesn't have the answer, 'God did it'.
No matter that the sum of all scientific knowledge to date is on the order of a few thousand years, their view is science should have ALL the answers by now, denying the fact that science is an accumulation of evidence as it is discovered.
It's a fascism that confirms the far-right moon-battery the left so likes to point out.
The arrogance that their beliefs are the 'one true' religion without tolerance for others, denies the other religions or belief systems in the world, including any form of Christianity except their own.
The difference is science continues to ask questions in the search for knowledge because they are intelligent enough to know what they don't know.