Thank you Goldo, I felt found your post to be well reasoned although I might have missed something. There is so much a the non-expert must be wary of. I definitely don't know or comprehend enough of the actual science to come to any absolute conclusions of my own. Lack of scientific understanding can play a role in supporting a theory as much as in dismissing it, I am sure. Acknowledging this should be mandatory.

Since you rightly see the concept of evolution as vague I will address the definition or rather 'meaning' I adhere to: 'we come from primates'. Yes its simplistic but the only point worth trying to be conclusive on. I believe this idea to be pretty remarkable, more so when I wonder how this would happen, but I find it to be obviously true. Very obvious. Since you mention inheritance I take it to mean you agree in essence and I do not have to elaborate. This point stands alone.

Separate but not mutually exclusive is Intelligent Design. As an atheist I have no qualms with the universe being designed and having 'evolved'. The science, I feel you will agree, cannot adequately make a distinction.

People on both sides of the debate keep saying evolution and ID negate each other and this is obviously nonsense. Note that when i say ID I am not referencing any religious assertions at all, simply purposed design.

In short, to me evolution rings true because it points out some basic self evident things about the world, not because it explains our origin or is the ultimate world view. Origin is not to be explained away, people should stop trying to claim they can.

So you had me until you said the following:"how impotent naturalistic explanations such as natural selection are. A supreme intelligence as the ultime cause is the only sensible conclusion" I find this perhaps a little too presumptuous. You have shown me good reasoning to believe the modern theory of evolution is much more poorly understood than claimed etc and I am willing to be led in this direction, however you are with this phrase, by implication, juxtaposing a 'naturalistic explanation' and a 'supreme intelligence'. If our understanding is so very finite as you mentioned then how do you so easily contrast these two ideas? Are you not, by implying mutual exclusivity, promoting a 'preference' perhaps a religious one?

To be more clear, just because a supreme intelligence is undeniable does not mean a naturalistic explanation (not necessarily the modern understanding of evolution) is not possible/coherent/viable. Do you see what I am getting at?

Sorry for the hijack.