So why don’t you believe Him, i.e. what He says on the matter? Ultimately, this is between you and He, and I am merely incidental. Incorporating theories ultimately derived from pagan doctrine is not in God’s honor FWICS, WADR.
Evolution is not fundamental to biology, sorry. People like Pasteur (who believed in creation) are far more important (dare I say infinitely more important) to the development of biology than people such as Darwin.
Oh, I *do* believe God about the physical nature of the universe, since He shows it to me every time I look. When I construct a phylogenetic tree that shows a very specific evolutionary relationship and progression between closely related viruses, I believe that evidence. When I test the laws of physics and find them to be absolute and inviolable, I believe that evidence. The universe behaves according to the eternal and inviolable laws that God imposed on it, not according to the words of a moral lesson written a few thousand years ago by fallible men trying to understand God's will. What I most emphatically do NOT believe is that God is a trickster who took great care to plant evidence of an old earth, an older universe, and the process of evolution (at all levels, not just biological).
Evolution is not fundamental to biology, sorry. People like Pasteur (who believed in creation) are far more important (dare I say infinitely more important) to the development of biology than people such as Darwin.
Evolution is absolutely fundamental to biology, in much the same way that atomic theory is fundamental to chemistry or electromagnetic theory is fundamental to physics. Like any scientific theory, the theory of evolution is a predictive description of observed facts that helps to drive research by giving scientists the tools they need to make experimentally testable hypotheses. Understanding the process of evolution, the process described in the theory, is crucial in order to conduct biological research and to interpret the results.
Pasteur worked at a time when molecular biology was not even an idea, and the concept of hereditary genetics (itself a consequence of evolution) was barely in its infancy. Sure, he was able to develop a process to make milk safe to consume and a treatment for rabies. The fact that he did not consider the evolutionary components of his work does not mean they do not exist. I think he used rabbits to develop the rabies treatment; if it were not for the common genetic heritage (a consequence of evolution) of rabbits and humans, no treatment developed in rabbits would work on humans.
Evolution takes place through the accumulation of mutations in the genetic material (DNA for most organisms). The more time goes by, the more such mutations take place. The fact is that you could choose any gene you want, at random, and use it to construct a phylogenetic tree. And that tree will closely match the phylogenetic tree constructed using a different gene. And both trees will match phylogenies constructed using taxonomic methods. If there were no evolution, you would not be able to construct any of these trees, and you certainly would not be able to compare trees constructed independently, using different methods to come up with the same results. BTW, one feature of science is that when it is a genuine reflection of reality, different methods lead to the same results.