Of course it works towards specific features -- those which tend to lead to survival. Evolution cannot be blind, or at least totally blind. There's more to it than chance or blind luck.
Evolution is totally blind, that's not to say it doesn't have a purpose, it does as I have outlined many times in this thread, survival. However the process itself is completely blind. Genetic variance occurs out of pure chance, when such variations aid the survival of the species they are retained. It's that simple, perhaps you should read Richard Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Creationists will often argue that something as complex as a watch could not have come about by chance, there for humans could not have either. Dawkins demonstrates why that is a flawed argument in his book. Your own ideas about evolution seem to be confused.
Whether billions, trillions, or gazillions of stars, it remains that there is no widely accepted scientific evidence. Until there is more than just pollyanna speculations, I see a bigger chance of building large cities on Antarctica.
I find it hard to believe oil companies spend millions on oil rigs if there is only a minuscule chance of finding oil.
That's fair, your values would lead me to believe that you're completely agnostic, as there isn't a single shred of evidence that supports any of the various religions being true either... there's far more evidence to suggest that life outside of earth is possible. As for the oil rigs, yes oil companies have been burned massively by speculative drilling, they've also been rewarded as well.
Not to me, but it's legitimate to those who believe. And those who have very deeply held views may have the same opinion about you as you have about them. One man's ridicule can be another man's reason.
How can pseudo science be reasoned other than the obvious placebo/comforting elements?
Like religion, most pseudo science preys on the vulnerability of its clients.
I'm not sure what would prove an A to B connection, except to say that explicit atheism was a major tenet of communism, and that communists almost consistently committed mass atrocities. Communism posited that man was perfectible by his fellow man, and when one was not deemed perfectible, or refused to live in the new eden under communist ideals, one was judged to be worthless and thus became expendable. Atheism, under the communist system at least, was certainly at complete odds with the views on the individual espoused by the Orthodox Christianity that communism replaced in the Soviet world.
You've proven nothing with your statement.
Atheism cannot be directly attributed to any massacre...
Religion can be connected to numerous killings on a daily basis all throughout history.
It's ironic how Christains use the term evil to often describe those who do not believe what they do, the term should apply to their god (and thus them) if any of their rubbish is to be taken as true. God encourages slavery, selling daughters, stoning neighbours (and children) to death, killing non-believers, demanding an intense amount of worship... If this guy were real he'd be burned at the stake... oh wait.