Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
In the case of evolution through natural selection (which is I assume what you folks mean when you use the term, "evolution"), the evidence in its favor is all circumstantial. Being circumstantial doesn't make it wrong, but it isn't an air-tight, law of nature as say, Thermodynamics is. It is a very strongly supported theory with a few embarrassing apparent exceptions here and there.
Some popular promoters of evolution have a fervency about their belief in evolution that any religionist will recognize as similar to their own fervency and mostly label as another incarnation of Satan. Most western religionists who have a serious conflict with evolution are some sort of Biblical literalist. Most western religionists are not Biblical literalists. Many western religionists see no conflict between evolution through natural selection and their religion.
Back when I used to work in organismal biology I found that the evolution dogma was a very useful framework on which to hang explanations of relatedness in form and function of organs between species. To me, I didn't find evolution a threat to God or whatever. Most of the time that argument seemed rather trivial. See, one can have develop a very reasonable description of relatedness without dragging some unsuspecting deity into the discussion. In that case, I invoke a rule of parsimony that suggests that no theory should be more complicated than necessary. It works like this: If a deity is unnecessary for a description of some event or other, don't invoke the deity. I think it was a French mathematician, LaGrange (?) who, in a similar context opined, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
Curiously, (or interestingly, or ironically, depending on one's perspective) that rule of parsimony was promoted most effectively by a Christian monk in the Middle Ages. William of Oakham.