I know you'd like to think that. To me it sounds like an ad hoc creation - invented just-so to explain inconsistencies, anomolies, decay, etc.
But I am certainly at liberty, I hope, to present my claim as the more reasonable of the two.
Because it is simpler, right? And yet the evolutionary explanations are simpler yet. They fall right of the theory. No ad hoc-ness at all.
as possible further evidence of man as being created in the image of God, the words above which were "created" out of nothing science as we know it would able to predict.
Why do you think I or anyone should find that convincing? If I were to claim that the sun created fire because because they're both very hot, would I convince you? I hope not. Analogy is not science.
I'm curious, what do you say to people who would claim that God is made in man's image? Analogy works both ways you know.
Given the assumptions with which you operate and the evidence presented to your senses and reason, it is no surprise to me that you find the theory of evolution to be a simple explanation. I do, too. Copernicus' idea was not "simple" where direct sense and reason is concerned. That is in large part why he and his successors had to fight an uphill battle against the scientific conservatism of the day.
As for ascribing the word "conservative" to science, in certain respects this is obviously the case. In other respects it is not. As further evidence of intelligent design I would like to point out the capacity for human language to make use of the same word yet apply it with different meanings and still communicate an idea.
Incidentally, that is why reports of similar genetic material between man and monkey need not be interpreted as if the former is necessarily derived from the latter in history. Human language, as common and simple as it might appear to science, has yet to be fully explored by science, yet it allows the same word to have entirely different meanings depending on context. It would not surpise me in the least to find out that the biochemical world demonstrates the same attribute of variable expressions emanating from the same molecular substance.
Why do you think I or anyone should find that convincing?
If by "convincing" you mean "conclusive," "provable," "unfalsifiable," and the like, then I would not expect as much. Given the information that has come my way, namely that God created man in His image, it stands to reason that man would bear the imprint of creativity, which he does. Having been told that God spoke the creation into existence, it stands to reason that man, if created in the image of God, would also bear the imprint of speech that is instrumental in causing change.
Analogy is not science.
No, but science often makes use of analogy to express its ideas.
I'm curious, what do you say to people who would claim that God is made in man's image? Analogy works both ways you know.
No one has ever attempted to communicate such a thing to me in so many words, but there are a good many reports of people who make up their own gods, or try to make God say something He has not said.
If someone were to say "God is made in man's image" I would probably ask what makes them believe as much. As far as my personal observations go, the universe often demonstrates a line of progression from source to product. "God," by the language of human convention, is a source, not a product.