[jec41]

For basic elements to eventually end in the vast diversity of plant, animal and insect life today by random action, you have to, at some point, have life come from nonlife, or the theory collapses. The moment you presuppose life and start from there, to avoid an intelligent creator, you must explain how that life came into being. You try to avoid this corundum by stating that the theory doesn't need to address that.

It absolutely does. I'm not impressed so far.

Learn the method of science. It presupposes no such thing, life can be observed as a fact unless you think you are dead. It does not even address a presupposition of creation. The theory addresses what it states not what you suppose it should state. There is no corundum of creation for science. If you can provide the observed material fact of creation, science will explain it and thank you for it. You will be the most famous man that ever lived.

[muawiyah]

Which means, of course, you can study life without reference to evolution.

That's not what is currently being claimed by those who seek to keep ID and Creationism out of the schools. They claim now that evolution is the very paradigm for biology itself, and you cannot understand the slightest thing about life without using evolution.

I doubt either position is correct, but there you have it.

[William Terrell]

Then you have to stipulate the equal possibility of a creative intelligent force. Evolution can not be without a creation.