If God created life and all the species on earth, then either He left tracks or He didn't. He didn't.
And of course, Darwin was no atheist, although he moved closer to atheism as he got older. But first & foremost, Darwin was a scientist.
Did you know I became an atheist at age 13, not because of anything whatever to do with evolution? It just struck me that it's, ummm, intellectually indefensible to believe in a supernatural person who nobody sees and who is only able to communicate with those people who already fervently believe in him - and then only telepathically, so that there never is any intersubjectively verifiable evidence that he was really there. If I did believe in God, I'd still believe in evolution because I'm not going to disbelieve my lyin' eyes.
Antique religious practices amounted to attempts to communicate directly with the spirit world using oracles, prophecy, idols and idolatry, divination, electrical gadgetry such as the ark of the covenant, etc.
Given the manner in which the words "prophet" and "prophecy" permiate every other book of the Old Testament, it is astonishing that the word "prophet" occurs only once in Genesis, i.e. the vague reference to Abraham as "God's prophet", after the flood. One possible interpretation of this is that, prior to the flood, communication with the spirit world was direct and natural, and did not require anything resembling oracles or prophecy.
There is reason to believe that the human mind and brain were originally hardwired for a form of communication as far above anything we now have as anything we now have is above smoke signals. How anything like that could evolve, of course, is just another problem for evolutionists.
Julian Jaynes "Origin of Consciousness" describes the manner in which such capabilities were ground out of the human race by a process of attrition as they became progressively more disfunctional and as the practice of idolatry turned the world into an insane assylum for hundreds of years after the flood.
Nonetheless, vestiges of a few such capabilities remain. A google search on the two terms 'military' and 'remote viewing' turns up over 6000 hits, and I assume this means that the U.S. military does not have the luxury of ignoring scientific developments because they are politically incorrect or because they break paradigms. One such article which might serve as a starting point:
Likewise the king of France in the 1400s did not have such a luxury. The Catholic church, apparently making up in thoroughness for anything they might lack in celibacy, took several hundred years to analyze the case of Joan of Arc, and ultimately determined that at least some of her activities required information that she had no way of having other than for paranormal means; they cannonized Joan in the 20'th century.
Rupert Sheldrake is a former director of studies in cellular biology at Cambridge University. His studies with dogs who appear to know when their owners are coming home are seen on cable channel programs. The most fabulous case of remnant telepathic capabilities in animals is that of Nkisi, an African grey parrot involved in animal communication studies in New York. Sheldrake's "Seven Experiments Which Could Change the World" is nearly a must read along these lines.
Religious practices and social organization based upon such phenomena broke down before the time of Christ and were in disrepute by Roman times. Christianity amounts to a new kind of religion, in which it is acknowledged that we know the spirit world through faith, and not via direct contact.
There actually are a handful of neo catastrophists who believe in evolution; I am not one of them.
The most major arguments against evolution are:
Of course He did, His work is His evidence. Why do you think abiogenesis has been shown to be practically impossible? Why do you think that the more we learn about how organisms function, the more ridiculous the theory of evolution looks?
And of course, Darwin was no atheist, although he moved closer to atheism as he got older. But first & foremost, Darwin was a scientist.
Oh please, you know better than that. Not only was he an atheist, he was a hypocritical atheist:
"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.
Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.
If I did believe in God, I'd still believe in evolution because I'm not going to disbelieve my lyin' eyes.
You have seen evolution with your own eyes? This is one story I need to hear!