And another...
"We know atoms exist. Yet, unless one has an electron microscope one cannot see an atom. So we believe the evidence (facts) other have given us.
The difference here, someone could get a microscope and actually show us an atom. And while you and I may well believe the evidence we've been shown concerning survival of the fittest and losing our tails over time is compelling evidence of evolution, we just don't have anything akin to the microscope for this argument. "
Good point. There is a kind of difference between the evidence for an atom and the evidence for evolution. For one thing, it's impossible to see an evolution—because evolution is not an object, but a process. (One could say the same about atoms, actually, but that's another conversation.)
But there's more similarity than we might think at first glance. We don't really see an atom on the screen of an electron microscope—we see a pattern of light and dark, which we interpret as an atom, because of our theory, and the mounting evidence which supports it.
On the other hand, if we took the time and trouble to study fossil records, biology, geology, etc, we would be able to "see" evolution in the physical evidence. The problem with the "theory" of intelligent design is that it isn't a theory anymore, because there is no conceivable evidence that could prove it right or wrong.
There was a time when creationism was a theory, when it claimed real, verifiable, consequences that could be tested in the real world. Our whole theory of geology was built on it at one time, as was our theory of species.
But it turned out that when we looked at the geological record, and the fossil record, etc. that all life did not appear six thousand years ago in the middle east, and a great flood would not explain the physical geological evidence. The theory was proved wrong.
What remains is a general explanation that "God did it." which no evidence can contradict and which is the theoretical equivalent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This is not an argument against God, by the way, only against the silliness of trying to make a scientific theory out of a theological idea that has nothing to do with science.
