It’s funny that ID/creationists seem to think that any improbability or gap in evolution  means that automatically goddidit wins

It’s not really a choice between Evolution and a Sciencey worded Christian Creation Myth.

You have to look at the evidence and understand it – and the evidence does not suggest everything magiked into existence some 6000 years ago.

There’s the half life decay of radioactive material, there’s the rock strata, there’s the fossil records, there’s the continued extinction of species, the variety of species that continue to exist and we have a solid theory for the mechanisms of the evolution process.

And yes, we continue to observe species evolving today – including the Galapagos Finches – but most readily in virus and bacteria.
There’s no evidence for goddidit, there’s no way to observe, test or submit for peer review.

Do we have every fossil? No, fossils aren’t automatic and it’s not easy to find them.

And, even if we have a fossil A and a fossil C – when we do find a Fossil B – then the creationists will demand that there’s a A.5 and a B.5 to fit in-between those.

Evolution, for which there is  evidence – observed, tested and peer reviewed – even with it’s gaps and not fully explained areas, and because the theory can incorporate new data  is still the best explanation we have

Especially when the alleged alternative has no evidence, cannot be observed, tested, and the peers for it don’t even agree with each other – every religion after all, has it’s own creation myths – and there’s even several different kinds of creationists – some of whom will agree that their deity used evolution.

That “science” is a self correcting process is it’s strength, not a weakness.

That religion changes at a glacial pace, is not able to adjust to new information (because how can it be infallible when it’s wrong?) is it’s weakness.

______

Just wanted to add a link to an index of creationist claims and the science responses – everything that creationists claim and why it’s wrong.

remember: sciencey sounding words are not science