It is nothing more than a theory, an assumption that the universe and living things created themselves by a totally naturalistic, materialistic process."
The author's misuse of scientific terms is a certain sign of his scientific illiteracy.
This implies he is not making a scientific argument, but only expressing his religion-based opinions.
In fact: the broad term "science" includes
- confirmed observations, aka "facts",
- laws which mathematically relate data points,
- hypotheses which attempt to explain relationships, causes & effects in nature, and
- theories which are hypotheses confirmed by actual observations of predicted events.
In short a confirmed theory is the highest form of scientific explanation, so saying "evolution is just a theory" is to misstate the science, and demonstrate the authors scientific illiteracy.
Fama's article: "Evolutionists reject the idea of a Creator because they claim that facts must be observable by the senses.
Thus, this would exclude God."
Some evolutionists are atheists and reject the idea of a Creator, but many are Christians, including leaders of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches.
Fama's article: "The theory of evolution contends that billions of years ago the elements which the universe is made up of were packed into a dense mass at an extremely high temperature.
The mass exploded (the Big Bang)..."
Interesting to note that Fama considers astrophysics' cosmological "big bang theory" to be a sub-set of evolution theory.
Of course, Charles Darwin never intended any such thing.
Darwin made two very simple scientific observations: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
These had nothing to do with a "big bang" or even, necessarily, with some "primordial soup".
Fama's article: "Now, if life could come into existence by chance chemical reactions, why can’t the process be repeated in the laboratory..."
Scientifically speaking, there are several hypotheses, but no confirmed theories, about how life first began on earth.
Of those hypotheses, abiogenesis and transpermia are just two.
Efforts to confirm abiogenesis by reproducing "life" in a laboratory have demonstrated that "life" is a matter of definition, but that primitive pre-life organic molecules can be produced under conditions similar to early earth.
But the notion that billions of years of early cellular evolution can be reproduced in a matter of months, even under the most controlled laboratory conditions, is inherently ridiculous.
So all "origin of life" ideas remain unconfirmed hypotheses.
Fama's article: "Just how old the fossils are, is itself a matter of controversy."
No it isn't, not among real scientists.
The evolutionary time-line is well established and repeatedly confirmed through world-wide geological stratigraphy, dozens of radiometric dating techniques, DNA mutation rate analysis, and inputs from many other branches of science.
There is no scientific evidence challenging the accepted evolutionary time-line.
Fama's article: "...the fossil record contains no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are not important to evolution - transitional forms are evolution.
No transitional forms means no evolution!"
The question of "transitional forms" is a matter of perspective.
At its most basic level, every life, including you and me, is a "transitional form" between our ancestors and our descendants.
Research shows that every generation inherits a small number of more-or-less random DNA mutations, making the generation unique and "transitional" between ancestors and descendants.
Most DNA mutations are harmless, or get weeded-out by Natural Selection, and that is why species can live with little visible change for millions of years (the average is approx. one million years).
But when the environment changes (hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, new predators, etc.) and a species must either change or go extinct, then changes can be relatively rapid -- perhaps thousands instead of millions of generations.
As for the alleged absence of "transitional forms", in fact the fossil record is chock full of them, this being just one small example:
Fama's article: "The function of DNA is more complex than a computer’s.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that something this complex had an intelligent designer?"
By definition of the word "Christian", all Christians believe in an Intelligent Designer -- of the Universe, of its physical laws, of Earth itself, and of all life that has ever appeared here.
The scientific question is: what processes did God use to create everything we see?
The scientific answer, in part, is "evolution".
Christians and others who believe that God used evolution to create what we see are called "Theistic Evolutionists".
Theistic Evolutionism is the teaching of most Christian churches, including Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox.
Fama's article: "Within the human body there are a number of irreducibly complex systems.
That is, systems that would not function if they were any simpler."
This often repeated assertion is disproved by innumerable examples from both existing species and the fossil record.
In fact, every "modern" feature can be found in more primitive forms -- in living, fossils and/or embryonic development.
skipping down to Fama's conclusion: "Either an intelligent being created everything out of nothing, or nothing created everything out of nothing.
Which do you suppose is more likely?"
All Christians believe that God created everything out of nothing.
The question is whether He used evolution (as we understand it) to accomplish His purposes?
Those of us, including (if I understand correctly) recent Popes, who think God used evolution are known as theistic evolutionists.