I think a fundamental flaw with most people’s approach to Creation vs Evolution is categorically denying the possibility of one or the other. Evolutionists (not all scientists are) are people who believe in evolution. Scientists are people who seek to prove or disprove specific hypotheses in the pursuit of greater knowledge/understanding. Proving that living organisms have mutated doesn’t preclude or disprove intelligent design.

Here are some scientific hypotheses that either support intelligent design / creation or question evolution. I don’t have time to cite the original scientific findings or publications but you can easily find them to read more about them if you like:

1 – ‘clocking’ or dating methods are very suspect: a) The rate of change (10% decline since 1835) of the earth’s magnetic field. If you go backwards in time, it would have been strong enough to prevent life as little as 10,000 years ago.

 b) The oceans' salinity.  It is gradually increasing.  You can only roll that clock back so far before there's no salt in the ocean at all.

c) Carbon dating. Carbon 14 found in diamonds. Carbon dating of Pennsylvania coal beds completely inconsistent with 'millions of years' age. Carbon 14 in the atmosphere wasn't measured reliably before the industrial age.

2 – The existence of granite. Granite has frozen decaying isotopes of Polonium that have a half-life of less than a second. If you melt it and cool it becomes something completely different. It can not have gradually cooled as evolutionists suggest the earth did.

3 – Fossilized human remains of very tall, large men is inconsistent with smaller hunched ‘ape’ men of same geo age.

My friends, none of these are proof of anything specific. They just all add up to suggest that the world is not in fact millions of years old. And if you take away the age of the earth – evolutionists just HATE it.

The universe tends toward chaos, not order. Only intelligence can make order out of chaos.

Please read “The Greatest Show on Earth”. It’ll clarify everything for you.

And if yer wonderin’ how a Creationist can possibly embrace any aspect of evolution, it’s because I can read the words on the page in Genesis. Did you know it says, even there, that God “caused the Earth to bring forth” the fish and fowl and so on? Sounds like He wrote a very dynamic program and then pressed “start” to me. If we find out that all nonhuman life on this planet started as a pool of goo struck by lightning while Q and Captain Picard looked on…well that does nothing but adhere to the text on the page of my holy book (except of course for the presence Q and Picard hehe).

I will admit I’d be surprised if we ever find the “missing link” that puts humanity into the evolutionary queue, but I see no reason why there cannot be every aspect of evolution throughout the other various kingdoms of life … and it’s entirely possible that despite that break in the chain that seems to separate us from the animal kingdom that we ourselves are evolving in our own ways. The jump points in the Bible where humanity is instructed first to be fruit eaters, then general herbivores, then omnivores, would seem to indicate some development occurs over time.

1. Religion is not fundamentally certain. Religion is fundamentally loyal/faithful in absence of any evidence that would provide certainty. I can’t pull God out of my pocket and show Him to anyone. Therefore, for me to say “I am certain God exists” is foolish. I’m not certain of anything, I’m devoutly faithful while completely lacking a mote of evidence to back me up. It may “feel” like certainty on an emotional level, but it’s not. To use the word certain is to twist the proper definition of that word.

2. Science is not fundamentally uncertain. Science is just very patient (and rightfully so) in its demands for evidence being required to confer any degree of certainty upon anything.