So do you understand why throwing your hands up and saying “I don’t know” is not as useful and predictable or as satisfactory as an actual explanation based upon the evidence?
One thing the fossil record clearly does NOT show is that all species existed contemporaneously. So how is it that you accept the evidence of their long existence in the past without major change (say in three toed horses), but reject the evidence that those horses with toes didn’t live contemporaneously with horses with hooves?
Personally, I'm only concerned with the higher level problems with evolutionary explanations for the origin and development of life on earth, because I was told by scientists that this was a scientifically closed question, when it wasn't, and isn't.
Scientists can speculate all they want, as long as their speculation is labeled as such.
It's clear to me that militant atheists, from Darwin's time on, have used evolutionary theory to "debunk" the Bible or Christianity. That isn't science, and Christians, such as myself, resent it.
The means by which human life developed is an age-old question. St. Augustine postulated something similar to microevolution, while St. Thomas speculated that the "days" mentioned in Scripture corresponded to various "ages" of Creation.
These are interesting questions, but of little practical significance. If we believe that God created the natural world from nothing, and that He Created the human race in whatever way He chose fit, what difference does it make to us now?
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with investigating the origins of life or human life. The only thing I object to, in principle, is scientists telling us that they have certain knowledge regarding the big questions, i.e., "evolution is an indisputable fact," when the empirical evidence doesn't support such a position.
I don't like being lied to.
One thing the fossil record clearly does NOT show is that all species existed contemporaneously.
I understand that much.
So how is it that you accept the evidence of their long existence in the past without major change (say in three toed horses), but reject the evidence that those horses with toes didn’t live contemporaneously with horses with hooves?
I haven't studied horse toes, but I know that there is a scientific consensus that geological formations roughly correspond to various eras, along with the fossils contained therein, i.e., the Cambrian explosion.
*******************************************************
The other objection to I have to the modern scientific method is scientists engaging in metaphysics, while condemning Christians for doing so.
For example, many scientists condemn attempts to quantify "intelligent design," as with, for example, the theory of "irreducible complexity," while engaging in metaphysics themselves, i.e., rejecting divine intervention a priori, while, ironically, supporting research into artificial intelligence.