Replies

There are some extraordinary advances being made on our "theory" of evolution at this time, such as our understanding that evolution may take place in dischordant leaps rather than imperceptible slow-flow.

These are not "advances", they are grudging, tacit admissions that macro-evolutionary theory has utterly failed. The "discordant leaps" necessary to bridge the fossil and biochemical gaps between "punctuated equilibria" would require literal MIRACLES -- violations of Shannon Entropy (informational theory.)

Creationism is a religious freedom, and I support that. But it is, at it's heart, anti-scientific

Au contraire. Since evolution as a mode of origin (as distinct from one of adaptive radiation), simply does not work in our physical univers, invoking the necessity of outside intervention is a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Evolutionists fume and sputter and come up with ever more ridiculous scenarios requiring ever more ridiculous assumptions, in a desperate attempt to evade the God "problem", while in a startling reversal, it's now creationists who apply Occam's razor and stick with the simpler theory.

That having been said, I don't believe that any school of thought really has it figured out, yet. In my opinion, both atheistic evolution and the "6 x 24hr day, 6kyr ago" young-earth creation model, force one to ignore some evidence. Hugh Ross's old earth creation model seems to have fewer problems,but even that doesn't account for everything. I'd love to see Hugh Ross (www.reasons.org) and Bryan Sykes (www.oxfordancestors.com) hash it out sometime.

Since evolution as a mode of origin (as distinct from one of adaptive radiation), simply does not work in our physical univers, invoking the necessity of outside intervention is a reasonable scientific hypothesis.

Why doesn't evolution work as a mode of origin for the species (mind you, no intelligent scientist claims that it is a mode of origin for life itself, since evolution does not deal with life origins).