Is the evolution story really scientific?

[ICStats]

padib said:

ICStats said:
The point was that we don't expect anyone to believe that the picture was not made by a painter. When we see a picture, we know there's a painter. We know it's created by a natural being and not a wizard.

A picture is too complex to create randomly in one step, just like our DNA with what they say has over 3 Gigabits of data, could not be created in one go randomly. The odds are beyond astronomical. And that's not what evolution implies. Evolution implies that many many small incremental changes which are "directed" by selection, can add up to very complex systems over time.

I understand that and it is hocus pocus. Again, if I see a painting, I won't assume it was the product of random brush strokes over time.... which would probably produce some kind of brown smear.

Which idea is hocus pocus?

You see a painting - you won't assume it was made randomly, you won't assume it was made by a wizard, because common sense tells you an intelligent painter made it.  Good.

When you see a human - your common sense tells you that a mystical being made it.  What?

Don't say one idea is hocus pocus when you believe in the hocus pocus answer.