@Mellymell. Sorry, if my writing style is opaque to you. I can be verbose, but I also credit those that might read my posts with sufficient intelligence to be able to navigate the verbiage and see the basis of the argument. Perhaps I am being too optimistic?
Not quite sure what you hoped to achieve through republishing my whole post without offering any comment of your own though?
@Goodlife. A few scientists can question the validity of their colleagues as much as they like - such criticisms are just hot air unless they can present empirical evidence to support a designer, and they cannot. Their latest attempt has been with the notion of Intelligent Design - a notion that has been tested and shown to be false and worthless.
As to this wrongheaded notion of yours that "evolutionists" arrogantly dismiss criticism and exhibit total certainty over their ideas -This is a patently false worldview - Anyone with even the remotest understanding of science will recognise how cautiously evidence is presented. It is all about the data, all about the evidence - its quality and its significance.
If your alleged designer can affect and interact with the material world, then that is all the justification science needs to investigate such claims and attempt to find such evidence - and none can be found. Instead what we find is a purely naturalistic universe, admitting of no need for a supernatural creator. You are making an old argument, best phrased, ironically enough, by the eminent evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" - that religion and science have their own domain of authority, with no overlap between the two. It was, most would agree I think, an effort to conciliate, but one ultimately without credence.
If you wish to attempt to justify your faith and make factual claims for your gods abilities, then you need to be able to demonstrate the evidence to support it, and you cannot. This is why those who interpret the bible as the inerrant word of god always run foul of science, and why they always attempt to reject or subvert the science.