I'll respond to this a little more later.
I've got class now, an all day test in another class tomorrow, and two tests and a 15-hour day on Wed.
Undoubtedly evolution is part of the plan, but I don't think that was the whole plan. Expect an answer on Thursday. Sorry for the delay.

j, can you give us more context?

"I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present." I read your comments carefully. I do not have to know everything about how the world works in order to know theories are true. Above is clearly an assertion. Did you really tell me to think before I type???

Think before you type.
If you know everything about how things came to be in the universe, then you can instruct me on ignorance.
You don't. I said nothing about ignoring anything. You drew conclusions from something I made no mention of and made no assertion about.
Since you ignored what I typed above, i will not explain it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AO...

Indeed, global warming does happen naturally, and we are but specks.
And no one will be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, but I do agree with your later argument that the odds of something this amazingly complicated could have evolved make the inverse of Avogadro's number look like a big number.

just because someone says they don't believe in microwaves because they can't be seen, does not mean they don't exist for that person. extreme empiricist point of view-

I wouldn't deny an evolutionary process. Sure there is adaptation in all species on earth to best hone them for survival in their environment.

Where I take issue is the Origin of the species. The odds of even 1 minuscule step in the "evolutionary" scheme is astronomical. Combine all of the necessary steps and the prospect of randomly making life is inconceivable odd-wise. I won't even go into the placement of the planet or the type of sun or the miraculous meteorite theory that brought with it the seeds of life. The odds are much better for intelligent design or God placing us here.

But alas, we won't know until we're beyond this phase of existence.

I'm reading a book on Hinduism now for research...fascinating stuff.

no, they have to have proof. and there are many ways to prove things we can't see. gravity for one. we can't see photons

you're ignoring evolution? how does that work? how is it possible for us to do the research we are in genetics without relying on at least 3 or 4 basic tenets of evolution. No one can deny them.
1. selection mechanism 2. offspring of any species is not a clone of the parent (sexual reproduction, random genetic variations/mutations, epigenetics) 3. reproduction
All of these are obvious and observable and you benefit from this knowledge and to deny it is to say gravity doesn't exist.

I view intelligent design as predicated on a higher intelligence which might have been perceived as God by someone, but not by me, and apparently not by some scientists conducting research on the subject.
I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present. Plenty of things yet to learn and neither theory requires an immediate answer, imo.

Always interesting food for thought. The whole premise rests on whether perception, or in this case lack of perception, qualifies existence. I think it does not. When we die or someone we know dies the world continues on without their active perception. For them existence ended (changed) but what they knew to be existence is now gone to them. Still, reality, perception, continues on for everyone else.

second part, yes that would be the qualifier but people would have to believe him/her (and not everyone would - human nature).

nope, just means we can't see it.

The whole if a tree fell in the forest thing. It kind of smacks with justifiable arrogance. :)

The difference fo me is this. Intelligent Design is a theory predicated on God and existence of God. All of the puesdo science must fit that model. Evolution is a scientific theory not based on existence or non-existence of God. there are gaps in the theory. Just as there are gaps in math and gaps in explanation of the beginning of the world. There is no reason logically to fill those gaps in with a Deity, however predictable by human nature. I am not familiar with the second book. I'll check into it

Winning may have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have chosen 'be proven correct'. As for providing proof, I poke holes in everything people tell me. Neither science or faith/religion can definitively offer proof since there is no way to turn back the clock to witness the "birth" of mankind. That being the case, I leave the door open to either possibility. There is very much that cannot be explained just as there are many patterns in nature that, to me, lend themselves to intelligent design. My 2 bits.

I do appreciate Chapter 1 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fascinating. I also really appreciate Clarke's Childhood's End. Staggeringly compelling.

we'll agree to disagree on the last statement. I don't think about it in terms of winning. Do you apply the same standards of proof to theism as you apply to environmentalism and man made global warming? Because if anyone said to me that it was impossible to know man made global warming did not exist, and so, we should plan for it just in case...

Really? Duh! I'm certain that global warming is not nonsense. GW occurs on every planet and is a natural occurrence. However, man-made global warming is nothing more than science by consensus designed to keep money pouring into scientific institutions and the pockets of snake oil charlatan's (Al Gore).

That whole teapot thing was thrown at me when discussion the existence of God. Unlike man made global warming, the "God" argument (never seems to be a discussion) is one that no one alive will ever win.