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.
Well, that and a small issue of religious orthodoxy. But that is a minor point, let's get to your real one.
Copernicus' idea was not "simple" where direct sense and reason is concerned.
With the unstated implication, I take it, that I should be willing similary to accept ID. I will tell you why I don't - as I understand it, ID makes no predictions and consequently can have no evidence. It cannot because it does not take the form of a scientific theory, a mathematical theory and a physical interpretation of that theory.
Perhaps you'll ask me, what about Dembski? Yes, he employs math, but he has no prescribed interpretation - he changes the meaning of the symbols at need to fool people. What rules he has he violates willy nilly. For example, he makes much of the need for independence in specification (ala specified complexity) but then routinely uses post hoc specifications.
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.
What counts as evidence for a theory to me is this - a fact is evidence for a theory if it is a consequence of the theory and its negation is not. It is not enought to simply be compatible with the theory, it must be implied by the theory. Show the the argument from ID that human language must be able to make use of the same word yet apply it with different meanings and still communicate an idea. You won't be able to do it because ID doesn't have the proper form.
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.
What do you make of shared pseudogenes? You may find this an interesting read.
If by "convincing" you mean "conclusive," "provable," "unfalsifiable," and the like, then I would not expect as much.
No, I mean convincing in a scientific sense. First off it means it must be evidence for a theory as I've discussed above. Then, you get to next step.
No, but science often makes use of analogy to express its ideas.
To explain them, not to express them. It is an important distinction. IOW, an analogy is neither an axiom nor a deduction.
If someone were to say "God is made in man's image" I would probably ask what makes them believe as much.
I think they would explain it by analogizing to the other gods that people have invented. I'm sure you don't believe that the Roman or Greek gods were real but rather that they were invented, and embellished, over time by their creators. These gods had many characteristics in common with their creators - IOW created in their image.
One last thing. I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that evolution or any scientific theory is True. IMO there is no such thing as a True scientific theory in the sense that it is a knowably true account of reality. All there are are better and worse descriptions. To give an example, Newton's theory of gravity in false, but it is still a scientific theory and a very good one for a wide range of our experience.
What I would try to do is convince you that evolution is a scientific theory, and a very good one.
And, BTW, I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope you are too.
PPS, Did you see Dr.S's post about Aristachus? It was something I hadn't known and puts the Copernican theory is a different context, at least for me - not nearly as new and surprising as I'd thought and therefore not nearly as radical as you had thought.