First, I have a linguistic problem with a "supernatural" theory of species evolution because if it turns out to be the correct description of how it happened, t

First, I have a linguistic problem with a "supernatural" theory of species evolution because if it turns out to be the correct description of how it happened, then that is natural. I cannot comment on Lamarckian evolution. My main problem of religious theories is that they are only the kind of just-so stories that you so despise. Evolution predicted in-between species and we found them in the fossil record; it predicted traits to be hereditary and later it was found how that worked with DNA, we found all animals share parts of their DNA with all other animals, et cetera. It's one of the strongest scientific theories there is in terms of how much it predicted that was later found to be true. Some details we don't know exactly (because we can't repeat it, and have to look at ancient fossils even though the vast majority of life never left a fossil and the vast majority of the life that did is still in the earth). And even for those we have are somewhat plausible just-so stories. That aren't evidence, but at least it's a way of showing that the presence of e.g. gays is not incompatible with the theory. Theist theories _started_ with a just-so story and then added more stories on top.