Ok, now that that's done (for now, I'm sure
), I think you have a very common misunderstanding about evolution. Namely, that belief in evolution
precludes a belief in God (or gods, even). While the case can be made that evolution (and much of other scientific though) is not compatible with a
strictly literal interpretation of the King James Bible, the two disciplines (science and faith) are compatible for most other people.
The conflict arises, usually, because science refuses to acknowledge God. This is due to the constraints of the tool, rather than to any prejudice on
the part of its users.
You see, science is a tool, nothing more. It's a way of approaching the physical evidence we have (rocks, fossils, genes, atoms, stars, all that
stuff) and trying to understand the physical rules that govern us all. We're told over and over in the bible (and in many other religions' texts)
that God is not measureable --We cannot comprehend Him fully, simply because we're too limited-- and because He cannot be measured, science is blind
to him. That doesn't mean science says "God doesn't exist," just that there's no physical evidence to prove He exists. Anyone trying to use
science to prove or disprove God is rather akin to someone trying to use college-level calculus to prove or disprove English grammar.
With the theory of evolution, we've taken a look at the physical evidence we have and said "This is the best theory we have to explain it. It seems
to account for everything we see here, and the predictions we can make with it have been accurate so far." We've progressed a long way beyond
Darwinian evolution now, and it's a pretty solid theory at this point.
It should be noted, as well, that the word "theory" has a very different meaning in scientific jargon than it does in every day use. Normally when
we use the word theory, it's analogous to "educated guess." It's something we have a feeling, and maybe a small amount of proof, about.
In scientific usage, on the other hand, a "theory" is something that's been tested multiple times, reviewed by many people, and has stood up to
that testing. A theory, in scientific jargon, is a fairly solid explanation.
There are a lot of theories in science: the theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetic radiation, etc.
Third, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution may describe how the first living thing became the plethora of animals and plants
we have today, but it only talks about how living things change. For the current theory of evolution it doesn't change a thing if that first critter
appeared when lighting hit a bit of scummy water, if an alien deliberately seeded it, or if God bent down and set it in the water. That's not to say
that there aren't scientific theories on the origins of life, just that those theories are separate from evolution. Right now we're concentrating
on abiogenesis (life coming from non-living matter) because we haven't found physical evidence of aliens seeding it, of God walking around placing
it, or even of life hitching a ride on a meteor. I can guarantee if we find any size-G footprints, or landing sites, or similar anabacteria on Mars
or a comet, the theories are going to be rearraging themselves fairly quickly. As it is, we're going with the one we have the most evidence for.
And even then, it doesn't preclude God. Just because the physical beginnings of life may have been explanable by purely physical means doesn't mean
that God hismelf didn't direct the lightning to strike the scummy bit of water at exactly the right time.
Sorry if this seems a bit long and preachy, it'ts just that too often these discussions fall back on misunderstandings and dogma rather than
attempting to look for a scientifically verifiable alternative to the current theories.