[pengstrom]

I always cringe when I hear evolution brought up as some invented method or mere developmental happenstance. It's a cold, unavoidable consequence of variation, selection and inheritance, in the absolutely most general way possible.

The universe evolves, life just found a way to make it quicker. Then we invented sexual dimorphism to make several selections within a single generation. Our human intelligence allows us to evolve ideas at an even faster rate.

The effects of evolution are in the realms of science, but evolution itself is the superstructure science, and anything else, has "evolved" in. It's time.

[Mawr]

I think the strongest argument for evolution is it's the simplest approach that could possibly work.

Or, using backward reasoning, what would be the simplest possible way to achieve life as complex as a human? Evolution.

[glimshe]

I don't agree it's the simplest. Creationism is actually simpler and that's why it's appealing to so many people. To be clear, I don't support Creationism, I'm just counter arguing.

[Mawr]

I suppose it may seem simpler because we tend to anthropomorphize god, so "god simply snapped his fingers and everything came into existence" angle doesn't sound too complicated.

But then you start asking questions like where did god come from and why did he do what he did and the simplicity starts to fall apart.

Really, the moment the words "there's an omnipotent being that..." are uttered, simplicity goes out of the window.