John, m’friend, I went through that over in the Second Law thread…it’s under the box marked “pepperoni and mushrooms” with two empty IBC cans. 
You are correct that evolution, or indeed any science, presupposes no divine intervention. But it does not do this out of atheistic motives. Its job – its raison d’etre – is to explain how the world operates in the absence of someone making a change. If you have a field full of rabbits, it is likely those rabbits will eat the timothy and such in the field and will multiply. On the other hand, if between your first observation and your second, N. Anonymous Individual comes along and puts them all in cages, one to a cage, and supplies them with carrots, the timothy will continue to grow and the rabbits will fail to reproduce. But my biological observation that this field of rabbits is likely to eat most of the timothy and to produce baby rabbits is not in error thereby.
One may suppose that God was offended by the sins of the dinosaurs, and therefore cast an asteroid at the Yucatan and opened up the lava flows in Asia. But that is not good science (or even good theology – how can we tell whether the dinosaurs sinned?).
I have stated repeatedly my stance that God does most of His work through pre-planning using natural law and through the action of the humans who follow Him. I see the Big Bang and evolutionary processes as the mechanisms through which He created.
But at rock bottom, the question is one of epistemology. The folks at the Pizza Parlor are not ignorant nor wilfully blinded. The literalists simply give intense credence to the Bible, such that any interpretation of data from the natural world that appears to contradict it as they interpret it must be misinterpretation or faked (perhaps by God). Many of them are not literalists. And given the idea that you have evidence satisfactory to you of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God, and that God is said to have inspired an error-free book, where precisely will you put your credence? If I bought all of the “given” clause above, I’d be arguing right alongside the other literalists! You cannot do better than something guaranteed error-free by someone omniscient!
And in the last analysis, when did having faith in God become closed-mindedness, anyway? If all believers are narrow, weird, and irrational, somebody forgot to give Tom, Jodi, Tris., Lib., 'Gator, and me our shots – we seem to have kept some semblance of rationality and broad-mindedness.
Or could it be that the shoe is on the other foot? On a couple of threads here, I’ve seen assertions by various posters (some but not all of whom seem lacking in the skills called for in the presentation of logical argument) of a dogmatic certitude that there is no God. How the heck do they know? In the absence of adequate proof of the existence of God, David and Gaudere’s stance seems reasonable, as does an honest agnosticism. With such proof, we theists do make sense. But it seems to me quite difficult if not impossible to prove the negative. If some people believe in God out of wish-fulfillment fantasy, is it possible some people believe as firmly in his non-existence out of a fear-fulfillment nightmare?
