Natural selection explains variation within a species.

it does not account for speciation or the the development of complex systems and structures which are not an advantage unless all the parts come together to make something that actually works and is beneficial without having the same "magical" process which might as well be a deity or higher order pasta. (gamma ray burst, yeah, that's the ticket)

Perhaps the real designer is in the DNA, RNA and Ribosomes, or the higher order process or dimensionality which govern their operation and write the code. This is the same higher order and dimensionality which governs the behavior of atoms and molecules.

What do you want to call the process or cause for the animation of molecules to produce living things?

The current words have too many negative connotations, but in reality they mean whatever people want them to mean.

Aside from virii and bacteria where are all the new species that this magical process of evolution produces?

If anything, extinction of species seems to be far more evident than the creation of new ones. Most species go extinct and "survival of the fittest" narrows down the options while "evolution" is supposed to increase the options. Which one appears to be working?

The Smithsonian has an exhibit on evolution with the polar bear as the prime piece of evidence to make the case. That certainly is easier than explaining how reptiles or birds make the jump to becoming a mammal by accidental mutations involving live birth, hair and mammary glands along with all the hard wired neurological wiring required to make it work.

Is it all an accident or is it somehow orchestrated and designed via unknown mechanisms which are made manifest through DNA RAN, Ribosomes and all the rest.

How do molecules know what to do?

How do they move to a higher order purpose?

How is that explainable?

It is not an assault on science, it just points out the gaps and the questions best left ignored if they are going to sell science as anything more than a more sophisticated belief system. Variation on patterns versus the creation of novel paterns is the real clash obscurred by the religious proclivities of both sides. Scientists are no different from anyone else and are just as prone to error and folly as the general population.

Hey, some of these scientists are saying that since we can only see light from 14.5 or so billion light years away that the universe must be 14.5 billion years old. They forget to take into account that the universe would have had to take some time to get to that size (14.5 billion light year radius) and even if it was expanding at the speed of light, which it isn't, it would have to be at least twice their claimed age.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How many dimensions in string theory?

The fact that people should thiink about stuff is a delight, but this subject seldom has anyone who thinks involved in it. Mostly just true believers on both sides of the same fence.

The Law of Gravity and the Laws of Electromagnetism are demonstrable, repeatable and verifiable. They follow precise mathematical formulas.

Evolution does not meet those requirements.

You are comparing dinosaurs with winged fire breathing dragons that talk with a Welsh accent.

And you believe in both of them.

Where is your science now?

i can drop something and see the law of gravity at work.

i can flip a switch and see the laws of electromagnetism at work.

Show me evolution creating a new species by random mutations filtered by natural selection.

Evolution of the eye - simply because you can see change does not indicate the mechanism of change. An eyespot and lens are fairly easy to buy, but how do the surrounding cells figure out how to make an eyelid that opens and closes by accident?

Try the evolution of the wing - what good is it to lose the use of your front legs or arms without having the whole package arrive at the same time? You just can't stick wings on something and expect it to fly. Any idea how complex the structure of a feather is in comparision to a hair or scale? And birds have hollow bones to make them light enoguh for flight. Did that happen before the wing or after it or at the same time? What makes sense?

Wings devolution is apparent in flightlesss birds. Devolution is just as demonstable as evolution and doesn't require magical engineering but just atrophy from lack of use, need or just from defect.