Confidence in evolutionary science

I see where your confidence is coming from, it's understandable. After all, that's where investigation is leading us. But how confident are you that this experience, the universe, evolution and sentience are a product of real unadulterated chance?After pondering a lot about this, I'd say that everything is unreal. The concept of emergence hides a great enigma. The human body, as it is, is mind-blowingly complex, in fact no words can properly describe the organisational complexity involved(especially when you consider how proteins move atoms to repair broken links within cells, how those 100 000 trillion trillion atoms of your body constantly move and interact in an organised fashion to create who you are). How real is this? How real is a whole galaxy that gets swollowed by a black hole and all the "matter" within it is reduced to the size of an atom or even zero? How real is your human body that is composed of 100 000 trillion trillion waves, seen every time at the double slit experiment as an interference pattern?Does an evolutionary atheist ever ask himself - "what exactly are we"? If not, why, and is the confidence in evolution merely a confidence that it is happening, but deeper questions aren't related to the theory of evolution and should be addressed by philosophy?

Benefit? For the benefit of those who are looking at the issue in a broader context. I wanted to know in particluar how confidence in evolution jives with the raised questions. I am not a solipsist, but i am not afraid to confront questions. By "unreal" i meant unreal in a sense that everything is a product of pure chance, inlc. evolution.I have no idea why you get hurt over this. Would a creator being(s) that made everything look like it was random, incl evolution make me a solipsist. Was Einstein a solipsist?

And those theories aren't the decider of your faith, everybody is aware of that. It's either chance(read atheist camp), or it's your fate in the hand of god. The fallacy lies with your religion or the inacceptance to look even a bit further beyond the atheist dogma. I am not against atheism but i am against pretending that too many zeros mean nothing. This is complete nonsense and it's a shame that atheists can spread drivel 7/24 here. A bridge does not have emergent properties, it's not alive and it's most definitely not conscious. If this board was not biased toward atheism you'd get at least temporary suspension. What??? Are you aware that proteins are in fact moving individual atoms? Are you at least partly aware that most of your atoms are actually in motion throughout your body? Are you aware that in a year, a human being changes more than 95% of it's constituent atoms?
Does the bridge change its atoms in a year?This board is said to promote science, I'd love to see how you'd get a tap on the back for the above hogwash. I'd say because i don't belong to your radical "religion". Yes, most definitely. As soon as get acquainted with emergent properties, you'd see that atoms do get to behave differently according to the specific configuration they are in. If this is news to you - OK, but it isn't to anyone else here. The only thing i implied, sorry if you have misunderstood, was that we are nowhere close to explaining reality, existence and emergent properties. Only ignorance can "explain" these phenomena and that was the point of my post, to show how many unwarranted and often ridiculous assumptions and beliefs atheism makes/holds(not that i think you'll understand but maybe someone who's reading this and isn't brain-washed).BTW, I am also a kind of an atheist towards all religions. I am simply not so radical as most of you and i do think that there is a cause for the existence of the universe.