Well it's not contradictory per se - nothing disproves a god hand-adjusting mutations, for instance. It's just got a lack of evidence which means we should assign it a low probability.

More commonly what I see is that people aren't 100% intellectually honest when they get into it. They don't apply the same rigor to their religious beliefs as they do others. Or they sort of re-interpret or cherry pick themselves around their scriptures to avoid awkward parts. Or they start stepping back and making less powerful claims than their religion traditionally did.

Sometimes they step all the way back into "well what if God is just the laws of physics?". At that point I don't think it's much of a technical discussion and more like, hey, if this comforts someone, and it's not making them make bad decisions (like hurting others based on this belief), well I'm not gonna waste my personal energy arguing.

I mean, so long they aren't arguing that the creator of all spacetime and beyond, of infinite knowledge and capability, cares how we dress or who we sleep with ... eh, fine whatever. Now, people selling water claiming it can cure cancer, that's another story ;).

This is what most educated Christians believe, and basically what I was taught in 12 years of Catholic school; it's a thoroughly mainstream position.

How do Catholics (or Protestants) reconcile evolution with the Creation of Man then?

Did God create Man or did he create the laws of natural selection that created Man?

Unlike evolution, abiogenesis has never been demonstrated in a Petri dish. Same for the Big Bang. In my understanding, some theists believe God "instantiated" a universe with certain parameters which we perceive as physical constants, that naturally led to hydrogen transforming itself into consciousness after 13.7 billion years. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he did it on purpose fully knowing how it will develop. So physics, geology, biology, etc. are all true and also the Genesis creation myth is kinda true (they believe genesis is a metaphor for people lacking the education to understand the full story).

I think if you assume there is a god compatible with science, I don't think there is any god account that matches this. Most accounts of the various gods involve violation of the laws of physics. I think if it's the bible god we are talking about, then I've seen a lot of mental energy spent on trying to work out how it might be compatible. Seems to me, it's driven more by a desire not to give up ones belief in god than a rational desire to find the truth.

"Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." -- Pierre-Simon Laplace

One might think that that god leaves a lot to be desired and that god is probably a tool of a god.

Given the scarcity of life in the universe in general, and the alarming rate of extinction in nature - more than 99% of all living things to ever exist are extinct, it's one thing to say the universe was designed with a purpose. But you can't really say that it was designed with life in mind. Life, and Earth- do not occupy a privilaged position in the universe. If you accept that- and all evidence points to that being the case, you cannot make a case for a theistic God.

you sound much too certain about this. the fact is we really know almost nothing about extra-terrestrial life.

I'm not making an argument in any way shape or form for a divine creation to the universe. I'm just trying to point out that you're making claims you can't possibly support with evidence and sounding as if you're certain of them in the way that people are certain about evidence backed claims. in other words, you're speaking from dogma not from knowledge.