You certainly seem to believe that. But why? You don't really know what the 'fact' is, I going to guess. You don't seem to have any real sense of what any theories might be, in any detail. But yet you feel compelled to believe. It's obviously for reasons other than science.
explantion of evolutionary theory takes hundreds
That's the point - it simply doesn't. That's why I mentioned particle physics. Simple formulas. Simple concepts. Basic tenets, if you will. There's much more to it. But it can be succinctly stated. Why is that? Because it's science. You want to tell me what evolution is, again?
the true glory of God exists, painting are more beautiful when you understand the medium and how the artist used it to create his work, so is this world God has given us.
You're describing perpetual adoration. You're describing heaven, to a degree. Free to be the best in adoration. Free to be more competent and more skilled and imaginative than Bach and Kepler and Aquinas all thrown together at their peak. And by observing the world, we see the hand of God.
The Creed is the shorthand version
We believe in One God. There's a lot that went into that, with regard to the Trinity, Persons, etc. But it's not shorthand. It means what it says. It is to the point. But volumes have been written on just that one point. It's both.
the Creed does no justice to
If you believe the four principal Creeds of The Church are in any way unjust then you don't really confess those Creeds, and are outside The Church, and proudly so. Many are. What line, what phrase, what word, is insufficient, in your opinion?
we can't make planets and suns
But one can predict this or that based on observation, reason and experiment in support of that. One develops theories to explain what the Hubble and others see. One does not say that a Quasar is an irreducible force of nature. One attempts to describe what a Quasar is, and then what it does, and why, and where it came from, and what might produce another, and so on. One notes much of this in the language of trig and calculus, in a language of symbols with rules for manipulation if not always verifying the semantics. And one looks to see if the predictions are supported by subsequent observations from the distant voice of the past.
Since evolutionism is so difficult to define and quantify, at least you might say it has no place in a science curriculum, and is at the very least, after 150 years still a remarkably immature science, if that's even the word.
I believe that because that's what all scientific theories are: an attempt to explain. I have a very real sense of what theories are, I don't necessarily believe all theories, as I've said repeatedly my best guess is that the current theory of evolution is wrong, but because I understand the history of science that doesn't scare me away from scientific theorization. I understand the cycle of "observe, guess, observe some more, guess some more, repeat" that is the heart of science.
Particle physics has simple formulas and simple concepts?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for telling the world you don't know a damn thing about physics. Really, you should be embarassed about that paragraph, so embarassed you should hit the abuse button on yourself and BEG the mods to get rid of it. I've told you what evolution is, multiple times, stop wasting time.
The whole thing is insufficient. The Church, God, Christianity quite simply CANNOT be explained by any 4 sentences. It's not possible, human language isn't that good. Maybe someday we'll invent a new concept of language that can do it, but right now the tools we have are simply not up to the task.
Of course much of what the Hubble has seen has caused massive quantities of scrambling in the astronomical community. We had predictions based on what we could see, Hubble saw something we couldn't see before, that something made us look at our predictions and say "holy crap, what a pile". So we made new predictions. This is most visible in the subsection of astronomy that's works out the creation of the universe, Hubble hosed them up one side and down the other. Which is the process of science, we observed, we guessed, we sent Hubble up to observe some more, and we are now guessing again.
We have tried to explain things as irreducable before. Cells were once the smallest thing, and atoms, and electrons, and quarks. And we keep finding new ways to disect irreducable things and find their reductions.
Evolution isn't difficult to define and quantify, you've been presented with well over a dozen rephrasing of the exact same definition. It's hard to explain HOW it happens, but the quantification of its occurance is easy, there's a bunch of charts already posted on this thread quantifying our best guess to the evolutionary chain leading to current species on the planet. Evolution is one of the hottest sciences today, it's the one going through the most internal discussions (totally seperate from the arguments with creationist, real evolutionary scientists don't have time to argue with people that simply don't believe, their too busy with people that believe but have a different idea), with some of the most interesting new discoveries, and demonstrating the reasons for the scientific method better than any other science today. If the science that's doing more of what science is supposed to do than any other today doesn't belong in science curriculum then we might as well just get rid of science curriculum.