If I were Ceeboo I would take the recommendations of his interlocutors but I would add a few things as well.
First, one of the philosophical questions that often gets ignored in these skeptic believer evolution debates is the nature of naturalism itself. Let's say Ceeboo does as Chap requests and reads up on evolution and actually says like he has in the past on other issues, you know what I was wrong - the evidence for evolution is very strong? I don't understand what that would have to do with his belief in God? Because an attitudinal or perspectival question still remains. Is naturalism itself benign? Or, yah I'll use the term here for emphasis, magical? There is a rational impasse respecting this philosophical question, because it is attitudinal and perspectival, not narrowly evidential toward one way of thinking.
Atheism views evolution from the benign naturalist lens, looking at all of natural life as if it were just brute fact. G.K. Chesterton made the observation in his brilliant essay, Ethics of Elfland, (For the skeptics, who might find Chesterton’s reasoning unscientific they might find it interesting that it was included by Martin Gardner, the former editor of Scientific American, in his anthology, Great Essays in Science, along with essays by Darwin, Eddington, Fermi, and Einstein.
His point boils down to, is naturalism benign? Trees bearing fruit, flowers being beautiful, love existing aren't logical truths or mathematical brute facts, they are existing things that aren't logically necessary, they could be imagined otherwise. They don't have to be the way they are like 3 is greater than 2. We cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a princess can turn into a frog. He calls this, “This elementary wonder,” He argues that enchantment, wonder, the magic of appearing in this world is a metaphysical reality. The atheist calls an egg turning into a chicken benign and a princess turning into a frog magical. But naturalism isn't benign and it isn't conceptually different than the princess and the frog no matter how much time is added. To make his point in reverse he argues that if a benign naturalist were to find himself in a magical filled world consisting of trees that bear burning candlesticks, plants that can sing enchanting songs, a princess that turned into a frog, fairies and enchanted creatures the naturalist would benignly pursue his methodological naturalism in the same way as our current world. Nothing would be different to him. But to the one who doesn't give in to the benign the magical is emphasized.
So, if I were Ceeboo I would argue so what to the evidence of naturalism and evolution in the benign view, what is wrong you guys that you don't see the magic of the natural world and what it can imply? There exists a wealth of evidence that evolution isn't only supported by historical contingency, adaptation and chance mutation but also by natural law. Physicist Jeremy England has proposed that life may be the result of law and inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka8573QQKW4 So we don't necessarily have to accept the happy accident idea of life, but that it was inevitable. Self organization is a law built into nature, the very laws of physics themselves help for life to inevitably arise. Many molecular and chemical processes necessary for life are just law, self organization,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468283. These inevitable processes of evolution can rationally be viewed in more than one way, again benign or enchanted?
We further see in evolution the same morphology appearing separately, not by a one off mutation or chance process. Nature appears law given so the same features in biology appear although not related. For example, most of us are aware of the African cheetah, but most of us are unaware that there existed an American Cheetah that was almost identical in structure and form. These examples of convergent evolution are so numerous they can't all be listed, Life as we know it seems to be just the fabric of nature. Law like. A hypothesis that if you rewound the tape all over again life as we know it would inevitably arise. Alien planets would be inhabited by not some foreign imagination of life, but the inevitable life as we know it and has emerged. Where do those life giving enchanting law like abilities come from? That question just returns us to the benign or enchanted philosophical question that doesn't rationally allow for the one or the other to be eliminated.
So, if I were Ceeboo I would just learn how enchanted evolution is and keep telling his interlocutors what makes them so certain naturalism is so boringly benign?
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40