Could you explain this further? "chemical complexity" that apparently isn't "magic" can occur and is responsible for what we observe around us ...etc... If that's not magic or miraculous? I don't know what is.
If we're talking science here (and I hope we are), then a scientific hypothesis is either sufficiently supported by evidence to be successfully replicated and eventually accepted as theory, or it isn't (or it could be in the process of accumulating evidence). Failed hypotheses are not "magic". It sounds like you believe that evolution should be considered a failed hypothesis rather than an accepted theory, and if that's so then the way to make your case is by examination of the supporting evidence to show how it is insufficient or perhaps misinterpreted.
First of all, you or myself do not know if all fossils are transitional forms. Again, a fossil does not tell you anything other than it "died". The scientist is the one placing the label, not the fossil.
I was just agreeing with Russ's brief statement about fossils, but the more accurate way of stating this principle is that all species, except those that go extinct, are transitional. This is because of imperfect reproduction - the next generation never receives a perfect copy of the genome of the previous generation.
Much of your skepticism appears to be fueled by what you see as the unlikelihood of random processes creating and evolving life, and if randomness were all that were involved then you'd be right. But randomness is only seen in reproduction, which is the imperfect copying of the genome from one generation to the next that I just mentioned. Selection operating on variation, both pre-existing and new due to mutation, is the real engine behind evolution, and it is believed to have played a significant role in the origin of life, too.
I'm interested in hearing what "mysteries" have been solved and how you're so certain there's been no hand of the divine involved.
All scientific things we know began as things we did not know, i.e., mysteries, though we don't have to use that term if you don't like it. But what was wrong with the three examples I already provided, lightning, northern lights and gravity as the force guiding the planets? At one time these were all attributed to the divine.
There is no scientific way to be certain that there's no hand of the divine involved. In science there's no way to be certain of anything, as tentativity is a prime tenet of science. But what we can say is that from a scientific perspective the divine has no supporting evidence, indeed not even any definition or description, and certainly no scientific evidence of its involvement in any natural phenomena.
--Percy
