I will start with one of your major points, that Evolution is non-scientific
due to the fact it doesn’t fit all of the criteria listed above.
This is often used by those who support the Creationist view-point, however when studied closely Evolution has filed every area. To do demonstrate how
I will split it up into its two areas; macro
and micro evolution.
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution
studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to
reconstruct how various organisms may be related
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory
(as in studies of cells,
and fruit flies
) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches
selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridisation--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macro-evolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical
(which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether
they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries
. For instance, evolution implies
that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old
) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about
100,000 years ago
), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed
what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million
years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved
in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate
matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If super intelligent aliens appeared and claimed
credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet
produced such evidence.
Another example of evolution at work is bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which show how over-time they can change so the immunity and medication
we once had no longer works.
Secondly I will move onto the platypus which you wish to bring up and how Evolution explains the Platypus. The platypus belongs to the order
, the most primitive group of living mammals. The only other member of this group is the echidna , or spiny anteater. Members of
this group are found to contain poison as well as laying eggs - due to their enviroment they did not need to evolve further and this explains why they
are only found alive within Australia, New Zealand and that region. Recently  it has been found that certain ancient mammals also had poisons
bites, but back to the platypus. If evolutionary theory is correct mammals evolved from Lizards as did birds, one of the hall marks of lizards are the
fact a majority are poisonous and nearly all (if not all) lay eggs. The platypus is in-between a modern mammal and a lizard and only helps to back up
the evolutionary theory. Furthermore the Archaeopteryx
skeletons back this up again, showing feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds
with features of dinosaurs.
Now a few of my own questions and points:
Firstly, we both have to agree for the Literal Interpretation of the Bible to be followed there can be no dispute on the meaning of the words and
terminology as it was written by man guided by God.
Secondly, if this is the case why do we not find skeletons of giants
that once walked the Earth? (Samuel 21:16, and 1 Chronicles 20:8)
Thirdly, when Arkansas passed a law requiring "equal time" for "creation science" and evolution, the law was challenged in Federal District Court.
of the bill included the religious leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, African Methodist Episcopal,
Presbyterian, and Southern Baptist churches
, along with several educational organizations. After a full trial, the judge ruled that "creation
science" did not qualify as a scientific theory .
Fifthly, in Edwards v. Aguillard [482 U.S. 578 (1987)], the court determined that "creation science" was inherently a religious idea and to mandate
or advocate it in the public schools would be unconstitutional. Other court decisions have upheld the right of a district to require that a teacher
teach evolution and not teach "creation science" 
Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches by Peter Grant (book).
(McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 [ED Ark. 1982])
(Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1003 [7th Cir. 1990]; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 [9th Cir.
[edit on 6/26/2005 by Amorymeltzer]