Scott Adams is the cartoonist who does “Dilbert”, a comic strip dedicated to proving that the Absurd is the dominating force in human society. His statements on Evolution were all terrible tongue-in-cheek.

I am responsible for every act of nature, every blade of grass, every thought, everything—

How about lunch on Friday?

Einstein never proved that. Relativity remains, just like Evolution, a theory supported by observations, and in the case of Relativity, there is much less supporting evidence than exists for Evolution. So why would this Adams fellow blindly accept Relativity, and purport it as fact, then try to use it to bash Evolution as being something “less-worthy” than other theories?
The other “points” made by Adams are also flawed, but my feeling is that these statements were meant to be a philosophical exercise, and not a real criticism of evolution.

Intelligent design is a theory based on faith on *why* humankind came about. Comparing it to evolution is comparing apples to oranges. And making it part of the science curriculum is like teaching how to make clay pots in a differential calculus course: useful, but unrelated.

1. Evolution is defined as the change in species over time. (Roughly speaking)

2. Einstein proved that time does not pass for an observer who is moving at the speed of light. It’s not just the observer’s perception; it’s his objective reality.

3. Therefore, evolution does not exist for an observer moving at the speed of light.

4. Although no people move at the speed of light, there is nothing special about our perspective except that it is ours.

5. Evolution is not true for all potential observers and therefore it is not completely true.

6. If something is not true for all observers, it is only a point of view.

I find this hilarious and interesting at the same time, because it shows that some people don’t want to see the facts. And Evolution doesn’t deny the existence of an intial intelligent creator, just the hypothesis that “Mankind” is just 5000 years old is bulls***.

It seems to me that if you are Christian, the entire question is wholly unanswerable from the very beginning by God’s very design, if you will forgive the term.

I also don’t understand how evolution itself is much of a going concern: how does this contradict anything except the most literal interpretation of the bible? Pope Benedict, for instance, has a more metaphorical explanation for evolution and the Big Bang as actual doctrine of Holy Mother the Church. And it goes back in time, as well, to the time the Church caved in to scientific exploration.

As I stated earlier, I’m not a believer, but it appears that Christians have a lot of wiggle room here if they chose to go that route, but that they don’t have to be very concerned about the question to begin with. God is not going to put proof of His existance in a tar pit to be discovered by some damned paleontologist, that’s for sure. And it sure as hell won’t be an astrophysicist.

So that’s the central problem of the question: a universe without a God will look a lot like one that does.