No, it's you who assume that evolution theory cannot, must not under any circumstances be valid and so you cherry-pick data to support your assumptions.
By contrast, I only assume what science itself assumes in these matters, assumptions such as:
Given those assumptions, basic evolution theory is the only one which works, namely: speciation from 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
blackpacific: "My eyes are always open to the truth, no matter where it may be found, but there simply is no evidence that the order we see around us comes from chaos or that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can ever be violated."
Sure, I "get" that you people put a lot of faith, a near religious faith, in the Power of the Second Law to defy any & all confirmed evidence of evolution.
You use that Second Law the way, oh, say, a fictional Harry Potter uses his magic wand to wave at things and force them to obey his commands.
But like all magic, the Second Law's power over material evidence is illusory when you misunderstand it and misapply it.
In this case, the Second Law does not prevent "complexification" inside a human made chemical reaction chamber, and neither does it prevent similar "complexifications" in God's reaction chamber, the Earth.
blackpacific: "Scientific knowledge is to be found in many differing disciplines.
Drinking the Kool-Aid of the evolutionary world view is not a prerequisite for the true scientist..."
Not "Kool-Aid", but evolution theory is essential to many scientific fields, from A (astronomy) to Z (zoology).
You won't find work in those fields if you reject it's basic ideas.
blackpacific: "You continue to lay down the “philosophy 101” insult, but it is an insult without merit.
I think it was a beauty for you to insist that your world view constitutes science while those who disagree with you are un-scientific.
I’m glad the US court system has sided with the evolutionists like yourself, after all they were the same entity who decided that... "
First, I have not insulted you, only told the truth.
By contrast, you have gratuitously insulted both me and science in general, several times.
Here's the truth of this matter: by law, anti-scientists like yourself have no authority -- none, zero, nada authority -- to say what is or is not science or to redefine science to suit your anti-science beliefs.
Legally, only scientists themselves get to say what is, or is not, real science.
Think of it this way: scientists own the copyright or patent on definitions of the word "science", you don't.
blackpacific: "God does not need evolutionary processes to create, but godless men do need a system that can explain the origins of living creatures without a Creator."
Neither you nor I nor anybody else knows what God "needs" or doesn't "need", but it does appear that He left us many clues to how He worked some miracles.
Those clues suggest the Earth's old age and evolutionary processes.
But natural-science by definition assumes what I listed above, including: only natural explanations for natural processes.
By assumption and intention, science does not ever touch on the super-natural, leaving all that to other fields of knowledge, such as theology.
blackpacific: "Do you think that He will be giving out atta-boys for the minds who have foisted these unscientific hoaxes upon the rest of mankind so as to sever them from their true End?"
Yes, by definition, only explanations which leave out the super-natural can be called "scientific".
As soon as you bring in the super-natural, you've left the realm of natural-science and entered a different classification of knowledge, possibly theology or metaphysics.
As for God's "atta boys", my church teaches those are reserved for people who accept Christ as our savior, regardless of our opinions on various scientific or political controversies.
You disagree?
Scientific knowledge and natural science are as genus to species. Yet the moderns think that natural science rules. For those who are educated, philosophy, which is the love of wisdom, is the highest science which human reason can attain. Theology can be divided into natural theology, which is the theology we can attain by the light of our natural reason, and sacred theology, which is based upon divinely revealed propositions. Philosophy is the hand maid of theology, as theology treats of the highest object, which is God. Anyone with a rudimentary foundation in the liberal arts would know these hierarchies of knowledge.
The study of nature has blossomed in the last few hundred years primarily due to the emphasis on measurement and the knowledge gleaned from these data. There have also been some truly remarkable explosions in mathematics in conjunction with these careful observations that have propelled us to where we are today.
But the stupid evolutionary world view invented by Darwin, and propagated by willful men, has masqueraded as scientific dogma. And those who poke fun at it get treated rudely, as you have so aptly demonstrated.
Here is something for you to ponder. The first principles of any science are known by intuition, not by demonstration. Do you have any idea why?
The point I was making earlier is that the evolutionary world view leads mens souls away from God. Those who promote it participate in the apostasy and scandal. If you do not see this I cannot help you ( I cannot “see” for you).