The theory of evolution is compatible with mainstream religion

I am not divisive, evolution is divisive. Mainstream religion is directly contradicted by the clear philosophical implications of biological evolution. I'm just the messenger. I'm sure that some people could rectify their faith with evolution. However, one must be diminished. Either their God didn't create all the life on the planet or the life evolved. One could perhaps contend divinely driven evolution; many do. However, that isn't evolution proper, it's a silly concept of evolution as a tool for an all-powerful being. It largely contends that we are the inevitable result of evolution; we are not. One quick change in the carboniferous and poof, we never would have existed. There is no requirement that we evolve, those that happen to, happen to live. The true power of evolution is that no driving force whatsoever is needed. In the struggle for life, there are far fewer organisms in existence than could be in existence if you consider the breeding rates of organisms. There is a struggle within a species to survive, and anytime one organism has a slight edge due to a helpful genetic chance change, it will take over the gene pool, one change after another, mistakes and prior models dead and failed. We are nothing more than a massive accumulation of lucky genetic mutations. That isn't what is accepted or even acceptable by mainstream religion. "I know I'm somebody 'Cause God don't make no junk." - Ethel Waters This is the traditional view of religion. You are special. You are good. You are created by God! -- Evolution, says that one little jiggle and the entirety of humanity would have been another could-have-been. There's nothing special about the accumulation of mutations which lead to you, just as there was nothing special about that particular sperm of your father's meeting that particular egg of your mother's... you got lucky. Nothing divine... nothing special. If not you, something else. I don't argue that humans don't believe humans are special, or society and civilization aren't extremely useful. My point is that there is a core religious *EXPECTATION* of humanity's divine creation rather than just luck. Human evolution, according to recent studies is actually going much faster (not stopped as you contend). There is still a battle of survival. If you check your family tree back far enough, you know what type of people you descend from? Rich people. There are genes for accumulation of wealth and in areas where poor people die and rich people live even as recently as the middle ages we can see these genetic changes. Certainly humans have advantages over other animals, but my point is that we are just another ape, the third chimpanzee, better at using tools and having a larger brain. However, all in all, we could far more easily not exist. This is a clear implication of evolution and an unacceptable notion by mainstream religions. You argue that "It's likely that everything happened by random chance and by accident but does something being extremely unlikely make it impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient deity to control and manipulate." -- No. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything about odds. Talking about evolution, "odds" aren't a coherent notion. My point is that this fiddling deity, this deity who tweaks little bits here and there and helps evolution over the difficult bits is religiously unacceptable: a third wheel of creation! 'Evolution explains it all, but certainly God must help sometimes' is not the argument of mainstream religion. Mainstream religion does not exalt God of Special Pleading. -- Mainstream religion worships God the creator who MADE life. This notion also requires an inferior understanding of evolution. The sheer power of building bits of lucky happenstance upon the corpses of the less lucky cousins does not require outside forces. It is akin to suggesting that math only work because elves make sure the numbers add up right. You suggest that evolution does not dissuade one from believing in a predetermined outcome. By whom was this outcome predetermined? What part of random mutations with the lucky-rare-useful ones preserved suggests things are predetermined? Not only should evolution dissuade one from believing in a predetermined outcome, believing in a predetermined outcome should dissuade one from believing evolution. Mainstream religions find the fact that we're apes and we descended from a common ancestor with monkeys to be categorically unpalatable, rightly so, and far from your nuanced suggestion. You talk about "God's Plan" or consistency with "God". That isn't what the topic refers to. I am saying that evolution and mainstream religion are not compatible. Not religion in general or just *SOME* religion, I refer to mainstream religion: the religion of the people. Not some abstracted belief in a deist God or in some semi-interventionist deity. Let me be clear here. I do not wish to be accused of committing a "no true Scotsman fallacy". I use the word mainstream to imply the bulk of religious thought today. I do not mean to shift the goalposts or equivocate. I am simply saying that the majority of religionists would be unable to comport their religion with a good understand of evolution. If I were to argue fundamentalists, I'd have strong grounds: http://www.answersingenesis.org... (Twenty Reasons Why Genesis is incompatible with evolution) This clearly show some obvious disjunct when you consider the utter disbelief in evolution within the fundamentalist communities and the extremely good understanding and acceptance of evolution within the secular community. Why then do the mainstream religious believers reject evolution? http://www.religioustolerance.org... A 2006 poll found 55% of people in the Us hold the creationist view, 27% theistic evolution, and 13% evolution. Which seems to hold a 68% group that doesn't find evolution at all compatible with religion. Also, it's noteworthy that creationism is often placed opposing evolution. You either believe in evolution or creation. You believe God did it or evolution did it. This is a majority claim. The reasons for non-belief in evolution were asked in the 2006 poll the top five reasons are: 1) belief Jesus Christ 2) belief in God 3) due to my religion or faith 4) not enough evidence 5) belief in the Bible And I'm pretty sure that #4 there is also due to religious beliefs. There's literally a world of evidence for evolution. My point that "God created life", is meant to express the complexities of life. I do not believe that mainstream religious faith is okay with the idea of God creating a simple replicating molecule and then evolution unguided creating whatever willy-nilly. Further, although evolution has nothing direct to say about abiogenesis it isn't unconcerned. The origin of life perhaps consists of a simple molecule or a starting chemical reaction. Evolution doesn't directly explain abiogenesis but it does reduce it to a trivial point. You state: "I think it's important to remember that most 'mainstream religions' hold God as an overseeing eternal powerful force that is a constant presence in our world." -- Exactly. And the idea of simple easy to understand natural processes like evolution making everything we are isn't a "compatible" notion with this idea. As for your commentary on Adam and Eve, I refer you to Answersingenesis which gave pretty clear reasons to actually find those incompatible with evolution: animals starting off as vegetarians, God making Adam from dust, etc. You can't pick and choose what "mainstream religion" accepts. You can't suggest they believe the fall and yet would have no qualms believing they are related to radishes. Perhaps these people just don't understand their religion or evolution well enough to comport the two, or perhaps you don't realize the divisiveness.