I must have read your post late at night and skimmed it, my bad. Where I read "someone" (or one) you actually wrote 'people'. And most of your arguments were points I would have made.
Tell me though.
1) When life began was it a single cell in Africa that "begat" all life or did it spontaneously occur at several different spots all over the world and many different cells begat all of life? Can the theory of evolution ever tell us that or is that lost forever (Philosphical answer(s) will do)?
I don't think anyone has suggested that the first cell started in Africa. It is possible that life began in more than one instance. But it would only be speculation to make that claim. There is too much similarity in DNA across the species to make a strong case for multiple origins.
We share 50% of our DNA with banannas, 40-50% with cabbage, and 60% with a fruit fly, for example. It is unlikely that life originating in two independent locations would take exactly the same path to producing DNA this similar.
2) Are there evolutionary molecules (I've read one paragraph on this so far)? Because if you follow the Second Law of Thermo (i.e. entropy) you would guess this NOT to be possible. I reconcile this by saying that man is not in a highly ordered state, man is in the lowest state of energy possible(j/k).
DNA is a self-replicating molecule. It is capable of making copies of itself, however, it usually makes imperfect copies. This is how it evolves.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. When a system is not closed and energy is pumped into it, there is plenty of opportunity for entropy to be reduced. The entire earth is an open system and the energy pouring into it from the sun fuels localized decreases in entropy in all kinds of forms, from living organisms to hurricanes. If you doubt that entropy can be reduced by external energy coming into a system, I dare you to stand in the path of a tornado.
3) And finally, when was the last major catastrophic event (i.e. super-volcano, killer asteroid, ice age) that "killed off virtually all life on earth" (Nova/Carl Sagan supplied hyperbole) ? Was that 100,000 years ago or 80,000? Yet we have all these different life forms today. I'll have to look into it. Is 100,000 years enough to created all this biodiversity or is the hyperbole scientifically supplied exaggeration?
The most recent major extinction event is called the Cretacous-Tertiary extinction which took place about 65 million years ago. Probably a huge asteroid impact. Extinction: 16% of marine familes and 18% land vertebrate familes including dinosaurs.
The most recent minor extinction event is the Pleistocene or Ice Age event which took place 40,000 - 50,000 years ago in which mostly the very large mammals of over 45kg were affected. In North America that would be such things as the Mammoths, Mastodons, Saber Tooth Tiger, and stuff like that.
I believe evolution is the most
probable mechanism by which God created life here on earth. I think a grander god would have done it so. Billions or years scales more to a god like number than the 5,000 and chump some believers insist on.
Actually, the ToE makes no claims about the origins of life. It is a theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet. There is speculation about the origins of life and the first self-replicating molecules, but there is not much to go on yet.
But as for life's diversity I believe as you do in theistic evolution, as do some 80% of the world's Christians who belong to denominations whose doctrines embrace science and specifically recognize the ToE as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.
I think the philosophy of science should be taught in H.S. and in that context questions should be raised about creation and how it relates to science and how science does not preclude creation at all. After all why let people use science as a crutch against creation, as an excuse NOT to believe when The Theory of Evolution is so evidently not able to definitively do that no matter how much Dawkins squacks about it?
I also think PoS should be taught in HS. And I think I agree with the rest of your paragraph if what you are saying is that science is not dealing with anything except natural processes. It is incapable of working with anything that cannot be measured repeatedly by more than one person. As such, it can make no claims about anything outside the world of natural processes.
Therefore it can make no claim about Creation. All it can do is ask for verifiable evidence for it.
Within that definition, there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of God. I agree with you that Dawkin's arguments against the existence of God are not very impressive. But for that matter, there is also no evidence for the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I am a big fan of Dawkins as a professional scientist and a great popularizer of science. I am not impressed with his writings on God and religion. I read the The God Delusion and was greatly disappointed. I wanted him to challenge my faith with something new and provocative, but I found nothing new in his book.
In other words start looking for legitimate compromise. You wouldn't be against that, would you?