No disrespect meant, but by that logic, why not go the whole nine yards and go for the "underdog" theory of the Flat Earth? That way, angels can preside over the four corners of the Earth like Isaiah said. My only point here is that the foundations of solid science aren't backed by what appeals to us or what we "root for," but rather by the outcome of research, like the answer or not.
That I believe in God might be a factor as well
Many of us who acknowledge the science behind evolution believe in God; many of those specifically believe in the Bible. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. When polled, a majority of scientists have revealed they believe in God, but almost 100% of scientists acknowledge evolution.
Your logic does no disrespect to me, only to yourself; when you use an example of a proven theory vs. a debunked one to elevate an unproven one over an unproven one. There is no proof of evolution - there is alot of inference - but no proof.
At it's peak nearly 100% of scientist acknowledged the earth was flat, that did not make it so.
Since a preponderance of academia voted for John Kerry, I guess I should have too.