I'm not the one who said that, that would be a direct quote from Bishop Wilberforce back in the 1890's.
To answer the question you asked me on the other thread, the reason I don't believe in evolution is:
1.) The law of probabilities suggests our very existence via natural selection is unlikely (human beings are incredibly complex).
2.) History has shown us that scientific theories are constantly changing and being disregarded as new ones take their place. Odds are (there we go with probabilities again) that within a few years science will abandon the current theory of evolution for something else.
3.) Our understanding of how DNA and genetics work is in its infancy, to say the least. We have really just begun to scratch the surface there. How can we possibly think we have an understanding of evolution when the building blocks of what makes us evolve, our genes, are so poorly understood?
1) No, the law of probabilities does not suggest that because you have absolutely no way of assessing how likely or unlikely human existence is. Besides, even unlikely, this is the outcome. It's unlikely that Jim wins the lottery, and it's equally unlikely that Jane wins the lottery. But over a sufficient time period,
somebody wins the lottery, and that person's odds were just as low as everyone else. Our exact form might be unlikely, but it's not any more unlikely than some other critter. "We're complex" is subjective, and a cop out. Look at a snowflake under a microscope. Some might say the pattern is complex. This isn't evidence that the snowflake was designed.
2) Another cop out. "Human beings have been wrong about stuff, therefore this is wrong." While science does
evolve over time, things like this don't change radically. For example, gravity being both a theory and a law proposed by Isaac Newton. You might say that Isaac Newton was wrong. After all, he hadn't accounted for relativity, which Einstein would figure out later. But Newton was still able to calculate motion and gravity pretty darn accurately at human levels. He had most of the picture, was just missing a piece. As a result, there were small discrepancies when he was calculating orbits of planets. So then relativity came along and solved the problem. Our understanding of gravity improved, but the underlying concept did not change radically.
Well, we'll certainly learn more about evolution as time goes on, improve our understanding of it. But the underlying concept isn't going anywhere.
3) Darwin had enough to know that evolution was happening and he didn't even know DNA existed. The discovery of DNA has added more evidence to evolution. The more we learn about DNA, the more we learn about evolution. But this is not a point that leads to the idea that evolution is wrong. I think you've moved the goalposts from "evolution is bull****" to "we don't know everything about evolution." Well, of course we don't. We don't know everything about... anything. Should we shut down nuclear reactors because we don't fully understand nuclear physics yet?
I can tell you that I believe in God because life is too complex to have occurred on its own.
I believe snowflakes are too complex to occur naturally.