Science is the how, religion is the why, if you feel that religion also answers the how, then feel free, but get off your computer, because that evil science created that machine you are sitting at.
If someone had looked at electricity and said, well, God did it, we would still be looking at the pretty lightning, and not have a clue how to create lightbulbs, heater elements etc.
It is peculiar that you write that. Did you know that
Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell where Christians ? In fact,
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion bears his name for that very reason. Having taken entire college courses on Maxwell's equations [Faraday's law is actually one of Maxwell's equations], I have great respect for both Maxwell and Faraday.
Fossil evidence, is rather convincing, and it is also repeatable, because the fact is, that if you find a fossil in a certain strata, most likely, you will find another of the same sort, and age in that same strata.
This supports rapid catastrophic burial given that animals of the same kind tend to congregate together.
The
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model is interesting [this is a biased statement as I have personal interests in mathematical models of dynamic systems]
John Baumgarder's Terra computer simulation of continental drift is considered the world’s best. A Brief History of TERRA Code Improvements during Round Two NASA Final Report John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory Other
related papers
The lack of transitional forms, along with gaps, discontinuities [all easy to support with "quote mining"] and lack of vertical sequencing of the fossil record demonstrates that the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence of the fossil record favors creation. The problem for evolutions is compounded by the a sudden appearance of many forms in some areas.
Evolution is one of the most rock solid scientific theories there is.
Hardly, information theory, mathematical probability, genetics, statistical mechanics, Halane's dilemma, anthropic principle, complexity of a single cell, complexity of human brian etc etc etc are all weighted against it. To ever arrive at new information by random mutation is belief in the absurd.
Sorry, but DNA evidence is rather convincing, and it is repeatable. this statement is unsupported, what is repeatable, what evidence ?? If you provide clarification, I will try to make time to respond.
Abiogenesis is not evolution, it is not even a theory at this point, it is a convenient noun for a possible theory of the future, that explains how life came from nonlife, and do not give me Pasteur, you should know better, it is a logical fallacy to use such a silly argument when it comes o abiogenesis. Just because we don't know how scientifically yet, does not mean that it is impossible
The first life had to come from somewhere, and we observe no mechanism which makes life from non-life. Even if we didn't fully understand a process we would still see the effect of it if it existed. There is no mechanism to make life from non-life. There is a difference between impossible and extremely improbable. Physics teachers often introduce the subject of quantum mechanics by talking about the probability of walking through walls. Does anybody actually try it, obviously no. Probability is a measure of faith. The probability of walking through a wall is absurdly low. If you hit your head hard enough on the wall, it will hurt.
As some people say, "god did it", is an excuse in science, and to use such an excuse makes science useless.
If anything, if God did it, it provides reasons to explore the design of the universe. Living within the concept that the world was created by a reasonable God, one can move with confidence, expecting to find out about the world by observation and experimentation. A commandment given is "to subdue and take dominion over the earth". When one behold the glory of God reflected in creation Rom 1:20, the Holy Spirit conforms us to the image of Christ II Cor 3:18. God has made a cause and effect universe; therefore we can find out something about the causes from the effects. We can also know about the first Cause. These concepts and others are found in the works of Francis Bacon. Sir Francis Bacon was the great exponent of experimentalism. He is often considered to be the father of the technological revolution.
Novum Organum (english) Novum Organum (latin) Advancement of Learning
To just brush off that much evidence as a marxist plot, or as unscientific, is not only foolish, it's just plain ridiculous. It is ignoring the reality, because your faith won't allow you to deal with the reality.
Evolution provides a foundational religious doctrine for many secular/atheistic/agnostic religions. Lumping all secular religions into marxism is as absurd as lumping all theistic religions into one of either Christianity, hinduism, pantheism, islam, or witchcraft etc. FWIW, in my humble opinion, the predominant atheistic religion in America is secular humanism or perhaps postmodernism, it isn't marxism.
Natural selection as a selective breeder within kinds of animals is scientific. It isn't terribly useful to experimental biology as people have performed selective breeding for thousands of years, nor does it produce any new information, but it is scientific nevertheless. The reality is no one has observed anything remotely close an animal changing into a distinctly different animal. There have been many observations of extinction, but never any random transformations into a distinctly new animal in all of recorded time. Fruit flies are still fruit flies, nylon bugs are still nylon bugs, polar bears are still polar bears, and fallen humans created in the image of God with a conscience on which the laws of God are written are still fallen humans created in the image of God with a conscience on which the laws of God are written.