BS, what you seem to be missing is that your mere assertion of "designer" is not the default winner if somehow you manage to do a big 'take-down' on the whole of evolutionary biology.
1. I am not interested in seeing the whole of evolutionary biology fall apart. There is an enormous amount of valuable knowledge connected to it. My interest is simply to see it presented in a more honesty and forthright manner.
2. In many ways, the Theory of Evolution provides valuable insight into why God is the more rational and plausible explanation for the world we live in. Still, it’s existence is inconsequential to whether a belief in God is accurate or not.
If you did that, you would still need actual evidence, not conjecture. That is how science works - admit you don't know until sufficient evidence is presented. Pretending that there are only two logical/philosophical possibilities is dishonest.
Your comment here seems to presume that non-natural causes can only exist if naturalistic evidence for them can be presented. There is no logical path available to form such a demand. In other words, there are many non-empirical aspects to our reality that point more in favor of God than they do to naturalistic causes.
You allude to reading articles, blogs, and debates to learn about evolution. Not once do you actually mention any formal scientific education you have done, coursework on the subject, upper division textbooks or courses (such as those of biological anthropology), or ever having actually done formal peer reviewed homework in these subjects. You just site jaded websites that you think "do it". In short, in looks very much like you're just a Google/Wiki scholar (conspiracy guy) who's trolling to poke holes and act as if you know the science. That is likely a key factor in why so many here don't take you seriously. You really don't sound like you know what you're talking about (especially when you use X animal to Y animal arguments).
In a way, I am thankful that it may seem that I do not know what I am talking about. I suppose that some of that stems from the fact that I do not accept the totality of the evidence in the same way that others do so my position is perceived as radical and borne out of ignorance. That is part of the reason I have come to simply accept the accusation that my position is based on a lack of knowledge. I understand that the opposing view would naturally formulate such an accusation since they are under the impression that anyone who doesn’t “get it” must necessarily be missing or misinterpreting key parts of the theory.
As for my educational background, I honestly cannot tell you which undergraduate coursework I may have completed. It’s been awhile and I would have to pull out my transcripts to see which courses I may have taken. I do recall taking an advanced biology class because I remember having a highly contentious discussion with the professor. Don’t ask me what it was about, though, because I honestly cannot remember.
What I have started doing is taking online tests to challenge my knowledge and understanding. Unless the subject is really complex, I’m usually falling somewhere between 80%-100%. I feel comfortable and confident discussing most aspects of evolution.
My arguments may not sound like they come from a very informed person. I get that. But, I really do think part of it is because what others see as “science” I see as made up stories so my arguments probably don’t seem scientific because I don’t think the topic is based on real science.
Despite what some may think, I am NOT this militant anti-evolution thug who thinks that the theory is a complete farce. Some of it is, indeed, a theory….and a solid one. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not theory and that is what I contend. Too much of it has a religious overtone to it. The ToE reminds me of one of those exploding golf balls. It looks like a real golf ball. It feels like a real golf ball….and it does good at tricking the ball striker into believing it is real. But, when you hit it, that mutha' blows up and you realize that what seemed real, was actually just an illusion. The inside was filled with a bunch of white powder that rendered the ball completely unfit for the game of golf…..just like a lot of the storytelling does to an otherwise good theory.
Are you even open to having your assumptions overturned?
Absolutely. All it would take is one confirmed trail of fossils that clearly depicted the transition of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.
Perhaps more importantly, are you open enough to admit that perhaps, just maybe, your expectations (and your arbitrary definitions) of what science is and does are in error?
Using the current demarcation criteria, probably not. The methods used to qualify some of the methods as scientific are disturbing. I know the following quote has probably been cited excessively but I think it describes how many of us see the science behind evolution:
1. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Look deep within your own self. Do you find yourself search, looking, digging to find articles that just refute these claims or are you actually truly looking to understand the science?
That may have been the case at one time. In fact, I’m sure it was. When I realized, though, that making an honest assessment of the opposing views required an unbiased examination of the evidence, I started doing what was fair for myself.
From where we sit, the former looks to be very much the case. The way I know this is because you sound very much like me when I was a Christian apologist online trying to 'tear down' evolution (feeling on edge) and searching out the best arguments from my favorite apologists/IDers to protect what was being held inside. This is a very common theme amongst religious people and I don't think you are an exception.
If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?
I'd also like to know how much is at stake for you. If you stopped being a Christian today, and admitted to all your friends and family that you were having doubts and no longer knew if Christianity was true, what would be the likely consequence or fallout that would ensue?
I think the fallout would be minimal. Many of the people I associate with are non-theists or ‘quiet” Christians anyway. I would probably be asked a lot of questions by fellow Christians but I am rather certain that I would not be ostracized.