Controversial Topic Discussion

"After all our advancements in science and technology, the bible and people believing in it have not just survived, but flourished for 2000 years amid occasionally very strong opposition. This is incredible. I'm only using that as one simple example from the field of weak physical evidence that I use to back my faith...it is mostly just illogical faith but I try to use it as an excuse as little as possible. So with that in mind I'll go back to my hypothetical. I believe in the ToE 100%. I concede that there could be an omniscient being out there somewhere that doesn't want to show himself completely so there is no way to prove he is there. If I believe these two things then I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove that this omniscient being did not start evolution and enjoy watching it progress and then decide to stick a more thoughtful, sometimes more intelligent being on the planet he had created, not necessarily following the rules of evolution that he set in motion before."

I quoted the above section because this helps to illustrate what I mean when I say you are employing compartmentalization. Compartmentalization in this sense is restricting certain beliefs from the rigors of verification required other beliefs and actually shielding these beliefs from evidence so as to allow them to exist without facing the existing conflicts.

Take for example the story of the geologist in West Texas, employed by an oil company to survey for possible drilling sites, who is also a young earth creationist. This man knows the physical processes involved in bringing about oil deposits and the signs which lead one to the reasonable expectation of oil deposits existing in a given location. This is knowledge which requires he understands geological science which is wholly reliant on an old earth scenario. Yet, when asked how old the earth is, he will reply 6-10 thousand years and site as his evidence biblical scripture and theological reasoning. That these two understandings of the nature of the earth are completely at odds with each other is something he simply doesn't address. He keeps his religious belief in a place where it is never subjected to the contrary evidence he knows exists due to his understanding of geological processes.

You seem to employ the same type of thought process. You can see the evidence of hominin evolution leading to the present day human species, and I'm sure understand the scientific validity of common descent, including the human species, and yet you hold out the possibility that, despite the bountiful evidence, humans could well hold some special creation status. This claim, as with any claim appealing to a 'supernatural', 'all powerful' entity is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable by its nature, and the evidenced conclusion contradicts it to a very reasonable degree of certainty, but that can never effect such a belief because the creation belief is not held to any standard of proof and is in fact shielded from contrary evidence.

I would say that such a belief, in itself, is not harmful except that it, in a way, lends credence to anyone who wishes to hold to any belief, including ID and YEC proponents, as having an equally valid claim. This is simply no way to go about understanding our existence as it renders all claims equal. In order for us to expect to have a consistent and realistic picture of reality, we need criteria by which to determine truth from falsehood and reality from imagination. This requires us to follow the evidence for all our beliefs and adjust them accordingly.

I realize that your religious beliefs are at the foundation of your worldview. It is just very hard for me to understand from my non-religious perspective, the only perspective I have ever held. I have never found religious claims to hold any merit when held to the standards I require of my picture of reality and therefor have never held to any supernatural or religious beliefs.