The theory of evolution attempts to discover the history of life on earth, so that we can understand how the species we see today came to be. Evolution is the study of the history of life on earth. But instead of examining documents, gravestones, battlefields, and ruins of cities, evolution studies the evidence that living things have left behind. But it's still history.
As to the "why" question, well, evolution essentially trys to understand what happened, and how it happened. The "why" issue is in the domain of theology.
The problem with that line of thinking is that "historical events" have eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses provided all the forms of documentation you listed. They saw what happened and knew the "how" - and then they told us so.
If we had no written documentation of the Civil War, if all we had left were a few guns, chains, maybe even a uniform or two I wonder what modern historians would conclude? The chances are probably slim that the conclusions would resemble anything close to what we know happened during that period of time.
Without any eyewitnesses, evolution is forced to make assumptions about what "must have" happened in the now-unobservable past. In my opinion they are faulty assumptions.
I would say that you and I are both pretty solid on what we believe and why. I'd like to think you could be convinced with scientific evidence & superb logic that points to a Creator. I'm sure you'd like nothing more than for someone on the opposing side to do the same re: Evolution. But I believe that no matter what evidence you are presented with, your worldview would force you to find a different interpretation of the evidence.
After all, that's really the heart of the debate. It isn't that "creationists" and "evolutionists" have no evidence. Both have the exact same evidence but the worldview each side has determines the interpretation. My contention is that my worldview, based on the Bible, is the most appropriate and best fits the evidence - historically, culturally, and scientifically.
So while you and I, or you and others, could go back-and-forth about "evolutionary" or "creationist" evidence, I think it would be more beneficial to examine what your worldview is and why you believe it to be the best one to use when examining the world (again, historically, culturally, AND scientifically).
Since you are always dealing with the "how" would you mind sharing what you think is the "why"? I mean no disrespect; I'm just curious. Forgive me if you've posted this at length on another thread in the past. These threads tend to get a bit too big to follow thoroughly.
Ah ... no eyewitness, therefore no possibility of knowledge. This is the operative principle which drove the OJ jury to its conclusion.
Tell me ... there is a great circular depression in the ground near the town of Winslow, Arizona. It has the name of Meteor Crater (but don't let that prejudice you in what I'm going to ask). As far as I know, there are no eyewitnesses to the creation of that depression in the ground. So ... where does that leave us? We'll never know what caused it, huh?
Since you are always dealing with the "how" would you mind sharing what you think is the "why"? I mean no disrespect; I'm just curious. Forgive me if you've posted this at length on another thread in the past.
Science doesn't have any means of learning the "why" of evolution. And I'm not a theologian. I have no opinion about this. At least, none that I could rationally defend.
I think the original argument was that evidence that can't be experimentally reproduced is not valid evidence. Eyewitness testimony to the happenings of the Revolutionary War or the Civil War cannot be experimentally reproduced. Ie., no matter how many corpses of the founding fathers you exhume, you won't be able to have any of them write down their accounts today; therefore, their accounts are not experimentally reproducible. Since this eyewitness testimony fails the original standard, must we then conclude that the Revolution is "just a theory?"