5. I think they are mistaken... because of an overabundance of evidence that is used to "prove" evolution that doesn't answer the most fundamental questions about evolution or explain the biggest gaps in evolutionary theory.
6. Others really wanted to believe in something other than God (i think they like the unaccountability of it)
7. Others were just taught it and figured it was as true as everything else they were taught
~ the gaps that aren't dealt with are...
~~~~~~ origin of the first living cell (the accepted scientific LAW of biogenesis states that life only comes from life, it cannot come from non-life)
~~~~~~ real detailed step by step of intigrated co-dependant body systems (like the central nervous system, blood clotting, the heart, lungs, kindeys, brain - without ALL of these no one could live to continue evolving into what we are now)
~~~~~~~ the origin of DNA (it couldn't evolve because it is needed BEFORE a living cell is there to evolve)
~~~~~~~ the origin of the machines that organize and reduplicate DNA
Now, undoubtably someone will respond by saying "some of the things you wrote about up there aren't dealt with by evolution, we don't intend to answer those questions"
the problem with that thinking is that its EXACTLY what is wrong with evolution...
Einstein had to work on the theory of Relativity for YEARS to make sure that it was fully acceptable considering all that we know about the univierse... he couldn't just say "I don't want to worry about that part" and present a flawed theory"
Modern Evolutionary theory (particles to people evolution) isn't even a fully rounded theory... WHY, after all these years is there NO valid explanation of the origin of the systems that evolution DEPENDS upon?
The basic point of Evolution is to say that we came to be the way we are without any assistance from God. That is was all natural forces and undirected chance. But this theory just turns a blind eye to the most glaring DESIGN features of nature.
It's not an issue of lacking evidence... it's an issue of ignoring one piece of evidence and focusing on another. I believe that some things REALLY strongly point toward Evolution... but, when you consider some of the essential needs of the theory you are lacking in evidence that would be needed to support it. In other words, it's less about evidence and more about a "pet theory"