Evolution and Creationism

[PerennialPhilosophy]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?

This is a much needed video and I appreciate your responses. One small point to make is you say you're going to explain what evolution isn't then do a 190 and say what it is. If you did a 190 you would be slightly off target, much like your video is to my point. My point is how do you reconcile the ephemeral nature of the universe with evolution? You discuss evolution in terms of animals passing on traits that make them more fit for survival. Permanent survival is nonexistent. You look at how evolution functions, but you're ignoring my question of why? Abaris, I would recommend reading somebody's full argument before you dismiss it. You say it's not a miracle because it is not "up for debate". That is not the definition of a miracle. 
"Life isn't designed to end, nor to keep going, self-replication is not life's 'intention', it's just what it does. Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation, it simply does what it does within the system of the earth, oblivious to equally oblivious exterior forces which act upon it."
what it does is not its intentions? It has to be designed to either end or keep going, those are the only two options. Whether there is a designer or not does not matter. "Life isn't aware of the approaching annihilation.." I am not aware of approaching annihilation? 

---

Exactly what Rob and Ape said. When people ask these questions it seems like they add some special meaning to life. Realistically everything is just chaotic/random, messed up, has literally no special meaning or significance. These questions arise when humans assign meaning to life etc. The universe isn't designed to die or to keep on going, it just is doing something that you assign meaning to.

What does it say about consciousness that I can apply meaning to it? That is an innate part of being human. We are made of the universe and we give it meaning.

---

One based on repeatable observable science and the other is based on an invisible sky genie snapping his fingers.

Whether you observe it repeatedly or not does not make it any less of a miracle.