Because I don't know that we evolved from apes.
We did not. Saying we evolved from apes is about as accurate as saying we evolved from amoebae.
The farthest point to which creationism can go alongside science is the view that God created the laws of nature that allow for evolution to happen, and that in all His wisdom and glory, He foresaw that evolution would at some point produce homo sapiens sapiens.
Personally, however, I think haemorrhoids, cancer, the eye's blind spot, our inability to grasp spatial problems beyond 3 dimensions (and many in 3 dimensions), the spleen, and a few dozen more design flaws in the human body, are pretty sure signs that if we were intelligently and willfully designed by a creator, then he did a rather sloppy job.
Still kinda curious why Dizzy believes God is at odds with science. Is there a single major religion that the information in the first post contradicts? Honest question. Anyone know?
Sure. Some orthodox Christians and Jews believe the Earth is some 7000 years old. Many Christians believe dinosaurs and man were both created at the same time. The Bible says (or at least, a lot of self-proclaimed Bible experts say) that homosexuality is unnatural. Unfortunately, my cultural background doesn't give me enough ammunition to list similar clashes for other religious movements, but I'm pretty certain one could easily come up with Muslim, Hindu, or even Buddhist (although Buddhism is not technically a religion) teachings that bear similar flaws. Of course, a Christian belief that does not interpret the Bible literally, and instead tries to dig to the core of what it tries to say, does not have this problem. In fact, it is even possible to be a Christian (as in, a follower of Jesus) while rejecting the Bible as a whole (one would of course still use it as an important source of information about Jesus, but it doesn't have to be the ultimate authority about everything).
Pascal had it wrong, because he approached the whole thing from a context where belief in God was the norm. I'm coming from the other side, and from where I stand, the story goes more like, let's question everything. Then if someone proposes an arbitrary deity, why would I bet my money on it? What if I have two deities to choose from? What if I have 15? The whole God thing only makes sense if it offers a better explanation for my unanswered questions than my current set of beliefs, which it doesn't. Pascal himself doesn't even provide a useful definition of his god - he presents God as "unknowable", which, by nature, is also undefinable, and thus a useless concept in any rational reasoning. Pascal got away with it because again, in his time, belief in God was the norm and everybody pretty much took the God concept for granted. (On a side note, I think defining God as "the undefinable" is pretty much spot-on, as it's a nice parallel with the core of Gödel's theorem, a statement that says of itself to be false - if God is defined as the undefinable, is He defined or not?)
Another problem is that his premise (everything to win, nothing to lose) is ultimately wrong. Belief in God does not provide "free happiness"; instead, it can be the source of extreme misery. By wagering against God, you win the freedom to choose your own meaning, you win the right to not be bound by religious rules, you win ultimate responsibility for your own actions. By wagering for God, you win the comfort of an intelligent being looking after you, (possibly) the comfort of an afterlife, a ready-made set of rules to structure your life, and answers to your unanswerable questions.
And then the third flaw; you are not obliged to wager. Agnosticism is perfectly valid, nothing wrong with admitting you're not sure either way.