Mr Gordon, you read and refer to creationist material, that is not science, creationist material is faith. It is not reliable because it's designed to appeal to believers. It ignores evidence, it ignores the countless times the so called problems with evolution have been addressed. These issues are addressed but the very same fallacies pop up again. Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory refers to the mechanisms and means of evolution:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
''When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a
fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact
mechanism of evolution; there are several
theories of the mechanism of evolution.''
''The
worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (
AAAS 1990;
AAAS 2006;
GSA 2009;
NAS 2005;
NCSE 2012;
Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.''
