That is a very interesting theory dadmansabode. 

Made a good point that those who have no problem accepting the supernatural do have accepting the theory of a "God".

"Replacing Darwin" is one of your basis's of your argument. 

 Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
by Nathaniel T Jeanson PhD (Author) October 9, 2017

"If Darwin were to examine the evidence today using modern science, would his conclusions be the same?



Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published over 150 years ago, is considered one of history's most influential books and continues to serve as the foundation of thought for evolutionary biology. Since Darwin's time, however, new fields of science have emerged that simply give us better answers to the question of origins. With a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is uniquely qualified to investigate what genetics reveal about origins.



The Origins Puzzle Comes Together



If the science surrounding origins were a puzzle, Darwin would have had fewer than 15% of the pieces to work with when he developed his theory of evolution. We now have a much greater percentage of the pieces because of modern scientific research. As Dr. Jeanson puts the new pieces together, a whole new picture emerges, giving us a testable, predictive model to explain the origin of species.



A New Scientific Revolution Begins



Darwin's theory of evolution may be one of science's "sacred cows," but genetics research is proving it wrong. Changing an entrenched narrative, even if it's wrong, is no easy task. Replacing Darwin asks you to consider the possibility that, based on genetics research, our origins are more easily understood in the context of . . . In the beginning . . . God, with the timeline found in the biblical narrative of Genesis. There is a better answer to the origins debate than what we have been led to believe. Let the revolution begin!".

I have not read the book, but I read some things on the internet including the above..

dadmansabode, I am interested in your thoughts and why you came to your conclusions. It's nice to have a discussion without the usual copy and paste.

I haven't been on this forum for very long, but from what I have experienced, there are both different kinds of Christians here plus various non-believers. Personally, I like to call myself a skeptic, so I pretty much question everything, particularly stuff that needs a leap of faith to make sense. That's why I consider "evidence" to be something that is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, because in many contexts, people like to present their wishful thinking as "evidence", even when it doesn't meet the scientific criteria to back it up.

If this "Intelligent DNA" that you refer to had been generally accepted, we would have heard about it, not only from excited scientists, but from media all over the world. The silence speak its own language and indicates that it's not quite as straightforward as you like us to believe.

As do I illusion, but I do love reading all opinions and keeping an open mind.