re: #1387 Daria Emmons

Good comment.

My underlying point is that evolution appears to propose humanity is an accident. To the extent that it does, I see a conflict with religion.

I believe - now that I skimmed over the broad outline of what theistic evolution is - the people I spoke to believed in theistic evolution rather than ID.

However, if humanity is deigned not an accident, I wonder ultimately how that comports with scientific understanding of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that an omniscient and omnipotent deity is perfectly capable of setting the ground conditions at the very beginning of the universe that inexorably result in the evolution of humankind without the necessity for any further divine intervention in the process.

This contention is of course unproveable. But likewise, it is unfalsifiable. Which is why it is a belief, and not knowledge. And why it is not irrational to subscribe to it.

Creationism/ID, otoh, demands the existence of such divine intervention. And has rhetorically shot its pseudoscientific wad unsuccessfully endeavoring to prove it: