In a Christian sense, it can’t be thousands/billions of years either. Death came into the world as a result of Adam & Eve’s sin. If creation took billions of years (or even thousands) how/why did all those animals die before humans entered the scene. And if death already existed, then Adam & Eve’s sin did not bring it into the world, so Jesus is not required to take that punishment for our sins later on. Therefore, a longer creation period actually removes any value from the rest of the Bible. Simple.

While you are waiting, you may want to glance at the work of Richard Lenski and his team over at Michigan State and come up with another plausible explanation that DOES include your (apparently) singular definition of science. Unless, of course, almost every biologist who grasps and works with evolutionary theory is also an idiot, in which case you need to step up and show what proper science looks like. In either case, I await your revelations with anticipatory awe.

As far as Dawkins. He is an idiot. To say that lizards scales evolved into feathers is fantasy. For him to even teach that is so far out it is ridiculous. There isn’t any evidence to support that. NONE. If he didn’t have the credentials of teaching this nonsense for decades he would be laughed at as a moron. He also used the “evolution of the Corvette” as an example in his Blind Watchmaker book. Uhhh Corvettes have intelligent designers. Any average Christian could easily debate him. He likes to “muddy the waters” in his discussions. Change the subject when cornered for a single scrap of evidence to support his belief system. It is not even a theory because no science is involved. NONE.

Only if you’re eating the right kinds of mushroom…

Go to town. But the source is you, along with the decisions and choices you make about how to behave. You can attribute your decisions and choices any way you wish but that does not offer evidence for the literal existence of the attributed supernatural source. Back in the natural world, I can claim broccoli is the source of my morality and behave very morally. I doubt you would think my behaviour indicates that my belief in the primacy of this wise vegetable in directing my life caused my behaviour – moral or otherwise.

Rubbish.

That’s like saying believing (not as a starting position but because there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the claim) that mushrooms could not be intergalactic spaceships sent to spy on us is equally a screen of assumption and rules out truly honest inquiry. Such a list of believing what ISN’T, meaning that there’s no good reason to believe that there IS, is endless. We don’t believe in almost everything unless and until there is reason for doing so. But the problem here is determining whether or not there are justifiable reasons.

If one understands evolution to provide evidence that we come from ancestors not categorized as human, nor mammalian, nor even vertebrate, then one must discard any literal sense in special creation for humans by God. That hypothesis is not borne out by the evidence. There is simply no need for any ‘divine intervention’ explanation for the creation of humanity, and in that sense Dawkins, who thinks this is a very important battle, explains why evolution has led him to atheism. He also allows other scientists to place God somewhere beyond in the ancestral chain leading back to bacteria b ut think that any reason to do so is misapplied awe of nature.