Natural selection is certainly real, but it has zero creative power. It can only select from what already exists. Usually the actual creative mechanism is assumed to be random genetic mutations. But where has anyone observed mutations changing one kind of animal into a new more advanced kind? In reality mutations are destructive to genetic information, and over long timescales cause devolution. As more mutations are inherited, genetic disorders and diseases will increase. To learn more about this I recommend reading the book "Genetic Entropy" by Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford.
I strongly disagree that it's thought-terminating to believe that God designed the universe and living things. This understanding will lead scientists to study the genius constructions, techniques, and formulas that God used in order to improve our own machines and inventions. In contrast, the belief that living things evolved by chance may cause scientists to dismiss something they don't understand as a useless evolutionary leftover, rather than studying it further to find its actual purpose (e.g. the appendix). Thus evolutionary assumptions retard scientific progress.
Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases (Futuyma 1998, p. 274). Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998). Bacteria have evolved to grow at previously unviable temperatures (Bennett et al. 1992). In E. coli, we have seen the evolution (by artificial selection) of an entirely novel metabolic system including the ability to metabolize a new carbon source, the regulation of this ability by new regulatory genes, and the evolution of the ability to transport this new carbon source across the cell membrane (Hall 1982).
Such evolutionary acquisition of new function is also common in metazoans. We have observed insects become resistant to insecticides (Ffrench-Constant et al. 2000), animals and plants acquire disease resistance (Carpenter and O'Brien 1995; Richter and Ronald 2000), crustaceans evolve new defenses to predators (Hairston 1990), amphibians evolve tolerance to habitat acidification (Andren et al. 1989), and mammals acquire immunity to poisons (Bishop 1981). Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers.
Bacteria, plants, and other creatures are incredibly well designed to be able to adapt for survival in different environments, to the extent they can even copy and use external genes in some circumstances. Yet they still always reproduce the same kind. E. coli produce E. coli, plants produce the same kind of plant, animals produce the same kind of animal. There can be a lot of variation within a kind (e.g. all the different dog breeds), but a dog will never produce a non-dog, and a fish will never produce a non-fish. This requirement of microbe-to-man evolution contradicts the fundamental law of heredity.
> but a dog will never produce a non-dog, and a fish will never produce a non-fish. This requirement of microbe-to-man evolution contradicts the fundamental law of heredity.
Agreed! And doing so would of course invalidate our current understanding of how evolution works! We'd have to throw out our theory of evolution by natural selection if we ever observed a dog give birth to a non-dog!
The definition of a "species" isn't something defined by nature. Rather it's a construct that humans invented in our need to categorize things. Genetic dissimilarities one generation to the next are of course very very small. So small that adjacent members will always be of the same "species" (able to breed with each other). But cumulative changes over generations add up. So much so that if we skipped ahead many generations, we'd no longer have compatible breeding. Different "species" as we would say under our admittedly flawed categorization system. At what point in the family tree does the species change? Given that each species can breed with its adjacents? At what point does a color gradient stop being red and start being blue? As you can see, the flaw in this understanding stems only from holding onto the definition of distinct "species" as something real rather than a human creation. A useful one, don't get me wrong! But it's important to understand the fuzziness of this definition. Your argument stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of this idea.
By the way, the example above is not merely hypothetical, since species can be separated in space as well as time. We can observe this phenomenon in action through very fascinating phenomenon like "ring species".
Why would natural selection require creative power? It doesn't require any intelligence at all -- just a harsh environment that makes it more difficult for less effective / efficient random iterations to survive. Then multiply that by hundreds of millions of iterations.
Dismissing a feature as leftover isn't the fault of evolution -- it's a fault of the scientist. There should at least be a potential former use identified. But that doesn't make evolution less viable.
The evidence that you claim is missing for genetic mutations increasing complexity over long-time frames is simply not supported by the wealth of evidence from multi different disciplines. I'm sure Dr. John Sanford is quite persuasive, but the words of one individual do not refute the decades and centuries of evidence that dispute this.
It is indeed thought terminating to continue to hold a belief if it is not supported by evidence. The idea that organisms were formed more or less as they are, and that natural selection is only capable of minor adjustments is something that is empirically testable by observing genetic lineage, and the fossil record. But the hypothesis fails under the weight of our observations. It does really appear that organisms have a direct lineage all the way back to the most primitive forms of life. In light of this, we must reject the hypothesis and accept what the evidence tells us. To do otherwise is allow dogma to cloud our judgement.
I know I said this already, but I'd like to repeat my opinion on the intersection between religion and science: I do not believe that the creator of the universe would want us to reject the tools that they have given us to understand their universe. To do so would be to dismiss and condescend their achievement. So why do you choose to do this with evolution? Despite it being one of the most well-supported scientific theories we have? As you mentioned, you accept natural selection, so clearly you accept aspects of the theory despite it contradicting your theology. I'm sure your beliefs contradict your theology all the time across many aspects of your life. Surely you accept that a text from the bronze-age written by fallible humans and influenced by the ideas of the very specific culture that produced it is not literally 100% true?
I strongly disagree that it's thought-terminating to believe that God designed the universe and living things. This understanding will lead scientists to study the genius constructions, techniques, and formulas that God used in order to improve our own machines and inventions. In contrast, the belief that living things evolved by chance may cause scientists to dismiss something they don't understand as a useless evolutionary leftover, rather than studying it further to find its actual purpose (e.g. the appendix). Thus evolutionary assumptions retard scientific progress.