[Sola Veritas]

"Evolution is put to the competitive test every day."

That is also a falsehood. The only "competition" evoluntarily theory is faced with are about arguements over the mechanisms. The theory is so inculcated into the heads of people, that the basic premise is never argued or questioned by the vast majority.

Is this because it is such a good explaination? No, it is because it the the best explaination that can be come up with that excludes the requirement for a "creator." If there is a creator, then those created could be answerable to him(it). That is unacceptable by most.

[ItCanHappenToYou]

"That is unacceptable by most."

What is unacceptable to people in the stage of Concrete Operations (Pater identification) is that we are not the created, chosen children of a God.

Oh, those pesky identity problems!!!!

[RadioAstronomer]

No, it is because it the the best explaination that can be come up with that excludes the requirement for a "creator

Actually the theory of evolution does not posit a creator at all. However, should you desire a creator to be added to the theory, which one do you choose? Do you include the religious pantheons as well?

[Dimensio]

Is this because it is such a good explaination? No, it is because it the the best explaination that can be come up with that excludes the requirement for a "creator."

Absolutely no explanation in science includes the requirement for a 'creator'. This is because, thus far, there's been no reason for science to conclude one either because there is no creator, the evidence for this creator remains totally undiscovered or this creator is supernatural and thus outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.

If you're going to attack any one scientific theory for not addressing a 'creator', then you had better be prepared to attack absolutely all of them.