For some reason people presuppose evolution to be correct and then work backwards to make God fit into that. We should instead presuppose that the Bible and the Church fathers are correct and then work from there.
From Saint Augustine, speculating upon how life emerged based upon his inspired reading of Genesis (link to the blog quoting this
In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life, which were afterwards to be developed in gradual course.’
The Bible doesn't mention irrational numbers, which are a shocking revelation on the nature of reality unto themselves, but it fits with the existence of irrational numbers - in fact, much of the old testaments apparent moral contradictions make so much more sen with them - even though particular statements within the Bible appear to claim that Pi is equal to 3.
"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...."
— First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26
It ain't a science manual. I find the evidence for evolution to be powerful and compelling, though the picture isn't as complete as a High School textbook might claim, and I'm certain that there are vested interests within the scientific community who over-emphasize some evidence, and subtly undermine and cover up other evidence. In other words, I'm pretty sure that the broad strokes of evolution are true, but that the particulars need to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, I find compelling evidence of God's existence within evolution. It affirms the two ontological certitudes - pain and meaning. Without meaning as a 'pull' and pain as a 'push', there would be no adaption.
Incidentally, I don't buy into "Cogito ergo sum"; I see no evidence that I actually exist, I only see evidence that I ascribe meaning and manifest reality through that, while avoiding pain. And those two things, meaning and pain, are not within my ability to manifest; they are more primordial than the self which cogitates.
Another good article I was linked to, "How to be an Independent Thinker
" (you might get a warning, but I'm pretty sure the site is fine). In it he notes that fastidiousness about truth is an important factor in being an independent thinker. It's the lack of fastidiousness that allows people to get 'trapped' into conspiracy theories. The UFO claims really drive me up the wall. At the core, a UFO is just an unidentified
flying object, according to the observer. Which is a big "So what?" I barely passed my aircraft recognition course in the army. I know next to nothing about what sort of lights they have, or what satellites are going overhead. Or so I think until I talk to somebody who claims to have seen a UFO. I had a friend go full-conspiracy on me because he saw a satellite one night, and he considered it proof that the Black Knight had gone past. Yet this friend...
1. Thought satellites couldn't travel North/South around the globe.
2. Thought that his eyeballs were precise enough to declare this object to be going precisely /South.
3. Had never heard of pulsars.
4. Had never heard of the Landsat satellites, nor did he know that the data is freely available online.
5. Had no idea how to pick up the 'alien radio signals' that the alleged Black Knight is broadcasting.
I've been looking into UFOs and cryptids ever since I was a little kid. For the record, I'm various levels of confident on the following statements:
1. Nessie is an undiscovered species of eel.
2. Something large is in Lake Champlain.
3. Ogopogo is just a 'nature god' of Native American legend, not an animal.
4. Bigfoot might exist, is sapient if he does, doesn't completely obey what we consider physical laws, and may be responsible for the disappearances in State Parks and wilderness areas - possible nephilim?
But with UFOs - I've been looking and looking and looking, and I've never seen an ounce of evidence that they exist. Every single times I've dug into the UFO thing:
1. Obvious profile of a spy satellite, or other secret technology, that was extremely weird at the time, but has since been declassified: the cover up usually proves this (that is, the person/department in particular which covers it up would have been the people testing this now-declassified information).
2. Second and third hand reports from a small town newspaper, that either match people freaking out over barn owls, or are so utterly inconsistent that they should be dismissed as "Big Fish" stories.
3. Obvious explanations for '"the edge of perception" data - glowing lights that are nothing more than a heat signature of a jumbo jet, something moving in the distance in the same manner a child's helium balloon would move, et cetera.
4. Insufficient data - nothing but one or two people claiming something with no physical proof.
5. Obvious hoaxes.
If you're going to dismiss Dinosaurs as a conspiracy theory, it's incumbent upon you to study the evidence in depth and point to the parts where you think it's flawed. Honestly, if people put the energy into doing that, we'd be discovering so many new things through amateur paleontologists - as opposed to simply confirming the bias that science is 'lying' about things, or affirming the false belief that science and faith are somehow at odds with one another.
Incidentally, regarding the mythology of dragons - I heard through Jordan Peterson that chimpanzees have three distinct warning calls. One for 'bird predator', one for 'land predator with claws', and another for 'snake predator'. It's very interesting that the dragon is a construct of all three types of predators. Our understanding of morality and meaning is consistent with our biology. For example of this, look to communion. How do we participate in the divine and become children of God? Through eating and drinking, an act which is both intimate and communally performed. Or, the root of the word sin - missing the mark. We're a species who evolved to use stones, arrows, and spears - throwing weapons - to kill our prey at a distance. And our word for moral error derives from failing to kill our prey.
To paraphrase Aquinas, if reason and faith are in disagreement, at least one of them is wrong.