... Let me ask then exactly what you mean you say "stand up to scrutiny"?
A fair question! How about a mixed team of churchmen and academics? Using Lourdes again as an example, there have been about 5,000 claimed miracles investigated by the RCC. They
rejected all by 68 of them but were not willing to allow scrutiny by any independent doctors. We can only speculate why and what the result would have been of having impartial investigators.
Case in point, millions of people believe in the Theory of Evolution despite several facts.
I don't wish to be rude but you have displayed a few fundamental misunderstandings of '
the theory of evolution' and I don't think this is really the place to provide detailed answers. I sincerely suggest that you read a real book about evolution and not a half-baked criticism of it.
1.) It is a Theory. Nothing more, nothing less. It cannot be proven, which is why it's only a Theory.
There is some confusion over the terms 'Fact', 'Hypothesis', 'Law' and 'Theory'. The simple 'fact' is that there can never be certainty in science, something is only 'proven' to the best standards of knowledge that we have. For example, 'Phlogiston' was once a proven 'fact' that we now know is rubbish.
We do therefore talk about 'fact' and 'theory' with a degree of interchangeability. A poor example, but there is a 'theory' of gravity yet you doubtless accept gravity as a 'fact'. The 'proof' for evolution is overwhelming and is generally regarded as 'fact' but the interchangeability of terms allows us also to refer to the '
theory of evolution'. Rather like anthropomorphic global warming, all the time there are naysayers, it should scientifically, remain as a theory and not a fact.
2.) If humans descended from apes over the course of a few million years, why do we still have apes?
The 'theory' is of a common ancestor, not that we developed from Gorillas or Orang Utangs etc. The time scale of evolution of the higher animals is incredibly long and very difficult to identify. If however you look at the evolution of a lower order organism, you can see evolution taking place all the time, often in less than a year. If an organism changes/mutates and is better able to survive and thrive in a changing environment - that is evolution. We therefore have masses of absolute 'proof' of evolution in the lower order organisms which makes evolution per se a 'fact'.
If we can see such changes taking place before our eyes, I am prepared to accept that as evolution. If we can see such changes and still choose to ignore them, that deserves a less complimentary name
Is it implied that somehow one specific species of ape began to change and that during those millions of years to "humanhood" they remained the ONLY species to "evolve"?
Presumably you know about the genome? Obviously God could have chosen to give us 99% the same genes as apes and hominids as some sort of joke OR it could support the 'theory' of evolution that existed well before the genome was revealed to us. God may well have a great sense of humor but I know which I find most likely.
..... I don't mean to be rude, but that's the way I see it.
I understand. I also do not mean to be rude but if you are going to critique evolution, you really need to understand the 'facts' behind the 'theory'.