People (not just you, but lots of people) make assumptions about what people from different groups believe… further what they have the capacity to understand. As for me, I do not reject evolution, per se. I see many (and read many) examples of evolution in action here, and I appreciate experts here sharing them. As I said, I do not reject evolution, it is that I struggle to accept evolution. You, I’m sure, accept that there are different kinds of learners, right? So, people process things differently. For different kinds of thinkers with different backgrounds and different approaches, we all have a different threshold to acceptance. To give an example, take the Skydeck in Chicago:
Some will walk right out onto it. Others will do so when someone they trust does it. Still others will know that it’s safe to do so (because they’ve observed it to be true) but none of this convinces them to step out.
For many of us, it’s easy to see how people with your training can accept evolution as having the capability to result in all of the diversity of life we see now and over time. You can focus on several proteins, for instance, observe the mutations, see that they are beneficial, and understand how they (and other mechanisms) can affect changes in species over time. (This is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.) The situations with which you are familiar become a proxy for all of evolution. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 … = 1,073,825 and that works for you. You might run right out onto the Skydeck because you know the capacity of the acrylic floor, and the amount of torque applied at the fulcrum given a certain width of the cantilever, do a quick calculation and step out knowing that the floor will support you. You may have no questions and no regrets.
Others of us can accept that what you observe is so, but we don’t see it in a way that adds up to what we observe. I have said before that it’s not just that a light-sensitive spot has evolved into the eye, but rather that the eye evolved, along with the eye socket, the muscles and ligaments that control it, the flesh that surrounds it, the lids that cover it, the glands that moisturize it and the ducts that drain away the moisture. For many of us, getting from what we can see on a microscopic level does not translate well to a macroscopic level. We know that the fin bones look like the hand bones, but we cannot picture how, slowly over time (or quickly over time for that matter) the fin appeared (because it was beneficial) along with the musculature, ligaments, skin, nerves and blood vessels to support it.
Our inability to go from a mutation to an eye stems from the way that we think. But the fault is not entirely our own. The problem lies with people such as yourself. You have done a terrible job of articulating to the public in a meaningful way how all of this can occur. This is why ID has become so popular. The ID folks have won over the public by making the challenging accessible and providing a narrative that makes sense. Whenever I complain that things don’t make sense here, the response is that science is often counter-intuitive. So be it, but that doesn’t help me see how switching one amino acid for another becomes an eyeball.
The ball is in your court. If this narrative that you support occurred, then make it accessible to the rest of us so that we can comprehend it. Don’t treat us like idiots because we won’t walk out onto the Skydeck. There are lots of good reasons to be afraid of the Skydeck. Therein lies your challenge. Articulate to the masses so that we understand. If the science of ID is wrong, stop saying it is wrong, and explain what is right. Take the exact same approach that they take and make sense out of it.
If you can do it, you win. If not, you have what you have now… an ongoing debate over an issue that cannot be understood.