a reply to: Marma
First as you have seen the minute you mention Evolution and Creation in the same title you have attracted a vast number of believers of both
opinion's that see your attempt to find common ground as Heretical to both there belief system's.
But your basic principle is perfectly acceptable, evolution as a tool of a creator or creating force.
In laboratory conditions adaptation has been seen and proven many time's in everything from bacteria to fruit flies and the real world is filled
with examples such as isolated populations on distant island's having developed unique SHARED trait's as a result of there inbreeding and isolation or
as a direct result of the stress of there environment favouring one set of ability's over another.
Where Evolutionist's will take offence is if you threaten there monkey to man belief system and were creationists will take offence is if you try to
prove such a monkey to man belief system so in essence you have stepped into a minefield between these two opposing camp's that 'each' see the other
as utter idiot's.
Myself I am a creationist but NOT averse to the idea that my God as the ultimate true scientists and inventor has also used this process of natural
selection and adaptation as a mean's to an end - but in my view I believe he also directly intervenes and shapes some form's of life on occasion such
On the one side you DO have many religious people whom are in no way less intelligent than there atheist counterpart's but whom will reject
scientific interpretation out of hand often even not giving it any consideration.
On the other hand you have a group whom claim to be scientific but in fact are so unscientific that they will deny evidence that is contrary to there
world view (belief system) and so they are every bit as religious as the Deist's whom they deny.
Real science is never on one side of the other but remains' completely impartial, a scientist will never deny the existence of God or of Creation
unless he has empirical data to prove it and he would then merely say it was his THEORY that it came about in such and such a way.
So when you get a pseudo scientist that DENY's creation and God no matter how well qualified he is then he is literally letting his own belief system
take precedent over any true scientific impartiality and therefore his interpretation of science is tainted as a result.
Scientific Tenet, a tenet is a Latin Derived word which is spelled TENET but pronounced DENED.
A Theory can be supported but - NEVER - Proven.
ANY Theory if faced with evidence that disproves it is proven wrong - this is not interpretation of evidence but actual repeatable empirical
Note how few of the supposed scientific rational crowd on this site actually stick to these tenet's of science but instead use science as a quasi
religiosity that they themselves believe in usually driven by there own innate atheist view of there local reality which they then wish to impose upon
others while claiming to be rational in there own delusion while obviously they are patently irrational.
Both sides are guilty of Genuine scientific Heresy which is the denial and often even destruction or direct disregard of inconvenient evidence.
In the case of the Atheists (not all atheists just the true believers - an atheist is NOT an agnostic and agnostic science is the best) crowd it is
often down to the destruction or deliberate discrediting of professional's in fields of science that have proffered evidence that throw's there
precious monkey theory's into doubt, there are innumerable report's of such cases.
In the religious case not so much career's being sabotaged as in the past people being burned at the stake.
But I am pretty certain the same crowd that once burned scientific discoverers at the stake are now the one's using Science as there crutch and
trying to beat religious Believers around the head with it - they have just switched team's or something (metaphorically speaking).
One scientist, he was not a religious guy made this point.
Evolution break's the law's of conservation, it is like water flowing up a hill or in reverse up a waterfall to get from a pool of simple chemical's
to the first single celled organism which is many magnitudes more complex than that pool and then to become the advanced life form's we see today and
to believe that this actually happened without proof in some random fashion against all the almost infinite astronomical odd's is itself a religious
But then you are met with the other argument, were did God come from then - of course this is a cyclic argument based inside our view of linear time
and many of our religion's place God firmly outside of time.