Evolution and Creationism

[Bob Kelso]

Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? 

You're assuming the two are remotely comparable.

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?

Who said it should be? The theory is a description of a naturally occurring process. 

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. 

*my alteration*

See the above response. Evolution is a natural process.

The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang.

You could've stopped there mate. 

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. [b]On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. [/b]

You're assuming a purpose and a designer. How do you know these things?

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?

I don't, because I don't think things are designed. Life as we know it "is as it is"; and since I don't have the interest -nor the mental talent- to look into it any further than the cursory science as to why, I'm quite content to live my life fully without any unnecessary assumptions.