"Explain how evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and how it EXCLUDES the possibility of a diety [sic] beyond a reasonable doubt?" is asked by one of the more prolific typists here.
NOTHING can be explained "beyond a reasonable doubt." Science deals in theories - assembling the facts that establish the most likely conclusions.
Evolutionists once believed that species change was gradual, like a slope. DNA science now suggests it's more like a staircase, with sudden genetic mutations occurring periodically. Where these caused by a deity? Or some chemical process? Who cares? If you need proof of existence of God many would hold you are not a truly religious person because religion essentially deals with social behavior more than ritual behavior. All religions teach the highest importance is how you treat your brothers and sisters rather than how much praying or church going you do. Thus an open-minded atheist can fully participate in religious culture WITHOUT the need of belief in a supernatural entity.
"Explain how evolution [. . .] EXCLUDES the possibility of a diety [sic] beyond a reasonable doubt?"
First off, no one ever said evolution HAD to prove itself or the lack of a deity, "beyond reasonable doubt." Scientific theories are accepted based on a preponderance of evidence. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable interpretation of how life developed and evolved on our planet.
Secondly, you are probably mushing your words and using "evolution" as a synonym for "cosmology". It is not. They are different sciences. "Cosmology" is the study of how the universe came into existence and developed, over time. "Evolution" properly is the study of how living things developed and evolved once life began. By the way the science of "Abiogenesis" is the study of how life began from nonliving substances. These are not the same.
Third, the three studies above, "Cosmology," "Abiogeneisis" and "Evolution" are studies of the material world which exclude the supernatural (gods, deities, angels & demons) because they can not be proved or disproved in the material world. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that these are reasonable interpretations of material reality.
Fourth, you are free to add your own belief of how gods, deities, angels and demons affected the material world to bring about the creation of the universe if you want. No proof is needed. Just your faith.
"Explain how evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt . . ."
Meanwhile, belief in religion and creation science (including intelligent design) are an act of faith.
Creationism is a big hooey thing with certain fundamentalist, Christian, protestants. It is not required by the Roman Catholic Church or the,Easter Orthodox Church which have many millions m,ore members, here in the USA and world wide.
My degrees are in Math, Physics and Chemistry. Only idiots want to fight over 'evolution' and 'creationism'. Both lines of reasoning make sense to me. You can see evolution all around you.
Your only problem with God is you want to take the Bible absolutely literally.. The Bible is a book composed by men, God did not write the book. We know the Bible says God created the heaven and the earth; with a time to be born, a time to live and a time to die. Science says the heaven and earth were created and everything has a begining a life span and then it dies. Both the Bible and Science say exactly the same thing. Creationism and Science says 'man was created'.
The problem with agnostic scientists is they cannot 'prove' there is a GOD and creationists take the existence of GOD purely on faith.
Science and Religion are so close together if you are able to think..
My stand is if you want to believe in GOD the Creator this is fine. If you want to believe that the universe was created and everything just happened this is fine. As a great philosopher once said, "Beliefs are a personal thing, as they should be". But have you noticed how many would kill you for not believing as they do.
Back in ancient times, it was acceptable to have myths, that had mythic truths and science (e.g. studies of the material world) that had scientific truth. And it was not required that tghey be congruent.
In our modern world we have a fallacy of insisting that mythic truth and scientific truth must be the same. in C++ If Mythic == Scientific; It is a nonsense assertion.