Why make a decision if you don't have all of the evidence? Why rush to conclusions? As far as I know, there's no emergency to rush to judgement. Why not just wait a few million years for all the evidence, then make the decisons?
We will never have all of the evidence, and I don't think that anyone will ever know for sure. The overwhelming amount of evidence points towards evolution, so evolution is the theory that we believe. If someone comes up with a more efficient way to scientifically explain the diversity in biological systems that we observe today, then scientists will eventually adopt the new paradigm.
And more to the point, why not admit that you don't really know?
We do know that most evidence points to evolution.
And, of course, why continue to denigrate those who believe differently?
This is a point where you and I have some common ground---it isn't very proifessional to do such things. But I can tell you that, as someone who has spent about four years of my adult life studying a very small piece of physics, I get insulted when some layperson comes along and says "I don't understand [quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc.] so it must be wrong." In some cases, I have been the denigrator. Now imagine someone who has spent their whole life studying this problem, and some housewife on a school board in Kansas says "Well, my minister said that Intelligent Design was science, so we should vote for that because I won't go to Hell."
I have seen YOU as the denigrator in other threads, when someone expresses some bleeding heart liberal view that you don't agree with. (Not a personal attack, just an example!)
God might well be guiding every single step in all of this ...including watching y'all make such major decisions without enough evidence, and laughing at how you denigrate the religious people.
And this can never be proved or disproved, so long as God cannot be observed. But if this is the case, then humans can never know. (I had this conversation with my girlfriend last night, who is much more religious than me.) In the theory you described, God acts like a random number generator. God may perfectly well know what number he is going to think of next, but WE can never know. And if we can never know, we cannot use that knowledge to predict anything. Suppose God says---"I want this inferior fish to die, and this superior one to learn to walk". Well, we see a line of fossil fish with fins turing into legs. We think "Aha! Evolution!" But you say "Well, God decided that fish should live."
There is no difference between the two points of view. The two questions cannot interfere with one another. One question is an observational question: "Does evolution occur?" Clearly the evidence says yes. The philosophical question is "Does God cause it." This is unaddressed by any scientific or logical experiment.
You can have your God Baron. Just don't try to teach it to my kids in school!
Huh? Which theory did I present??? I've been saying all along that I don't know ....and I've been asking y'all about it ...those of you who claim to know. Yet every time I ask a question, all anyone can do is say the same old, tired things ....none of which prove anything.
First of all, this is your theory :
But isn't it equally true that god could have directed every single step in every single cell in every single living thing?
Call it a thought if you like. That's just semantics!
In my first (long) post, I pointed out that it is perfectly acceptable to hold this view, so long as you accept the fact that it implies that you accept certain other contentions to have a consistent philosophy. This is a philosophical question, and no scientist can test this opinion.