A deistic approach, one where someone considers the existence of a force or being capable of creation is reasonable.
But the Christian god is certainly a fabrication, no more valid than Osiris, Thor, Gaia, Ganesh, etc. etc.
What a small, petty god they chose to explain the universe.
To deal with some of the OPs original claims about evolution.
The eye: In The Origin of Species, Darwin does indeed reference the fact that the eye is an amazing organ that seems almost too complex to have evolved. And then in the next paragraph he begins a long and detailed explanation of the process. Creationist websites invariably include the partial quote and ignore the rest.
The eye began as a simple light sensitive cell, which you can still find on some single celled organisms today. Mutation, which occurs in all organisms, affects various genes in the DNA. In some organisms mutation may have disabled the light sensitivity, but in other mutations it increased the chemical photosensitivity, or the number of cells within a cluster giving directional feedback. You can find an excellent video describing the evolution of the eye if you google for "The Blind Watchmaker". (edit: I found a copy on YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo
Regarding science constantly finding new proof to dispute evolution:
Science is driven by the quest for knowledge. If research discovered a more realistic or elegant method of natural biological diversity, the discovers would be lauded for their efforts. But research in fields both inside and outside the realm of biology confirm Darwin's original theory. Darwin did not have all the answers, and in fact got some things wrong. But he laid a framework that has been improved upon by research in ethology, geology, molecular biology, genetics, paleontology and so on.
For example, there is no longer a missing link. Those gaps have been filled.
Transitional fossils showing the relationship between whales and hippos/cows have also been found.
Geological evidence involving sedimentary rock, igneous rock, carbon and uranium dating also verify predictions made about the appearance of 'simple' and increasingly complex organisms. Though a molecular biologist may take umbrage at the term 'simple'.
Genetics has reinforced the theory of evolution in a way that no other field of study. It's possible to map out the genome and see where relations occur, and even see the where branches in the evolutionary tree have occured. This can be mapped by ERVs,
endogenous retroviruses, which modify genetic code within the host. If you examine the genetic code of two distinct organisms and find a segment of ERV on the same point, yet not in a third organism with a strong relation to one, you can map out the divergence of genetics within the species.
There are now several examples of observed speciation, visible evolution, taking place.
Look up the evolution of
nylonase, an enzyme capable of breaking down nylon, despite nylon being an invention of the 20th century.
Also look up
Lenski's 20 year experiment with E. coli, in which thousands of generations of the bacteria were bred in a lab and archived at set generational gaps. Due to the speed at which E. coli reproduces, it is possible to observe and map out evolutionary chance and speciation within the organism.
Genetic drift, the slow change of genetic information between isolated populations of the same species can result in the eventual inability of the populations to mate, as no cross breeding occurs to correct transcription errors. You can find excellent examples of this by searching for "
ring species" or for a specific example "Larus gulls".
Okay, I could spend the next day citing stuff, but there's an issue that needs to be addressed first.
If I remember correctly, in one post the OP stated they didn't believe in evolution and didn't know much about it. Unless you actually read about evolution and understand the processes involved, you might as well be arguing with someone about how to perform microsurgical nerve reattachment.
If you're going to try and argue against evolution, you have to do better than parroting Creationist websites. You need to find the science that disproves it.
Ray Comfort is not a source of useful information on any subject, let alone biology. The man has shown himself to be ignorant of even a junior high level concept of basic biology. You may be familiar with the now infamous video in which he claims that a Banana is absolute proof of Creationism, the fruit in question being created to fit in mans hand perfectly.
Except that the banana Ray holds is the common banana found in supermarkets, a cultivar created by selective breeding over centuries. The wild variant isn't similar. Cauliflower, broccoli, carrots, all have similar ancestors which may still be found in the wild but with which they are not able to breed.
Kent Hovind is a con man and a fraudster, convicted as such.
I've rambled on long enough, and my laptop just warned me that it's almost out of juice.
The only reason to disbelieve evolution is if you are a Young Earth Creationist, who believes the bible is literal truth. If you believe the bible is a book of parables used to teach morality, or define social structure, or as a guide to worship, evolution isn't even an issue. But if you're a YEC, then I hope you have a good explanation for Unicorns.
Edit: Oh, and I hope everyone enjoyed International Blasphemy Day! (Sept 30th)
