I'm new to the boards, so I guess that a response to the OP in this thread is a pretty good place to start with my first post.
By way of a brief introduction, I'm a mature student studying marine biology in the UK ( so I guess I could describe myself as a biologist so I guess the OP question is directed at me)
So, how can I, an aspiring biologist beleive in ToE?
the obvious answer is a one word answer:
EVIDENCE - but perhaps more simply, the world would look very different if the genesis account were true.
for example:
The White cliffs of Dover wouldn't exist - the are made up of billions of microscopic fossils of marine plankton (coccolithophores
Coccolithophore - Wikipedia).
Neither pre or post flood geology nor biology can explain how such a large deposit was made in one place over just a few thousand years - The changes to ocean chemistry neccessary for this would have rendered the seas poisonous to virtually all marine life (including ironically coccolithophores themselves) - not to mention the changes to the laws of physics that ensured that all of these fossils were deposited so discretely.
In contrast global tectonics, known plankton growth models, and known deposition rates explain the existence of the chalk cliffs very well.
Ocean sediments would look very different - today we see sediments increasing in thickness from the Mid Ocean ridges to the continental shelves - not only this but the sediments of the abyssal plains are remarkably discrete - containing almost exclusively wind blown terrestrial dust of the very smallest grain sizes.
This is completely consistent with slow continental drift, and the behaviour of sediments in water - however a young earth and flood geology, would predict that deep ocean sediments are not only of a uniform thickness due to the rapid break-up of the continents (just a few months apparently), but would also predict a much more homogeous sediment type in terms of both grain size and physical composition.
I could give more examples of why the earth is not 6000 years old - and certainly I know them, but frankly - those are enough to be getting on with.
Looking at evolution from the "what would plants and animals look like if the genesis account were true" perspective, we have even more statling evidence either of evolution from common ancestors - or evidence for the most inept (or perhaps at the very best mischevious) creator.
Why, for example, would God create so many analogues and examples of intermediate eye structures in a just single phyla like mollusca (eyespots in gastropods, eye "cups" in bivalves, pinhole eyes in nautilida, and fully formed eyes in the rest of the cephalopoda class)?
why would god design man fully formed from scratch, but in the process give us a skeletal structure and musculature so similar to that of apes that it appears that we have been designed to walk on 4 legs and thus condemn so many of us to lower back pain in out later years?
Why would god also include genetic deformities in man that he had also included in other apes, but not in "lower" vertibrates such as cats and dogs.
I could give plenty more examples of lousy design throughout the animnal kingdom, and perhaps most pertinetly in Humans, but I hope you get the point:
Common descent explains these points - conversely if the genesis account is true then god is either a lousy engineer and designer or he's deliberately trying to f**k with our heads (as well as our diets and lumbar regions).
Neither of which could be construed as the actions of a loving, forgiving god, and certainly not the actions of an omnipotent superbeing.
In summary, for me personally - all it takes is a few simple comparsions with the predictions that either view point would make to what we can observe, to see which is the most valid.
Thanks for listening.
ps - if anyone is genuinely interested in the detail of the points I have raised - particularly related to marine biology and oceanography I'd be happy to either give a more detailed explanation of my points or direct you to useful reading material
Edited by AreWeNotMen?, : edited for typographic errors and invitation to ask for background information
™ Version 4.2
