No. Would you like me to explain the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning to you? It's a popular topic - I get to bring it up every now and then around here, especially when people demand "proof" in non-mathematical contexts.
Pretend evolution is on trial and a lawyer asks you to explain to a jury of layman why you believe your statistical tests are true. At this point, you can't point them to a textbook or a workshop. You need to make the case in a paragraph or two. Try it. Can it be done?
No, and they don't give anything resembling a full picture of what the basis for their conclusions is in courtrooms, either, because when they try, it's generally a disaster, as per the Simpson trial. Usually what you get in a courtroom boils down to precious little more than "I'm an expert, so take my word for it."
I know we've all had our attention spans ruined by television these days, but some things just aren't compressible into fifteen-second soundbites - at least, not if you want to really understand whatever the issue is.
I suppose I could rent one, but I'm not certain I would rest the claim of origin on this thing, unless the people who use it are willing to defend the logic behind its machinations.
What makes you think they aren't?
So, since we've explored a few principles that appear to be driving your criticism thus far - nothing is taken as axiomatic, all underlying assumptions must be proven on the spot, and we have to explain it all in three minutes or less - let's put them all to work, shall we? You spoke earlier of our relationship with God, but, of course, the underlying assumption that you declined to prove is that the existence of such a relationship is predicated on the existence of God. Please prove the logical truth of your underlying assumption; namely, that God exists. Any premise you use in so doing must be proven itself, in turn, naturally, so that we're not sitting on top of any nasty unproven assertions in our proof. Kindly refrain from pointing to any external collection of knowledge, such as the Bible or any type of apologetics or doctrinal or theological exercise - you're on the stand now, and you can't just send the jury off to Bible camp for a few weeks. Oh, and make sure you fit it all into about 200 words or less - wouldn't want to lose the jury in a storm of irrelevant detail, after all. And if you fail, I'll just shoot you on the spot.
Ready to play, or did you have any suggestions about how we might modify the game a bit?
Personally, my suggestion is that maybe we shouldn't pretend that we can take complicated issues and both make them simple and do justice to them. All in order to satisfy the self-proclaimed "thinkers". The thinkers will muddle through somehow, just like the rest of us.
I could just as easily say, "reality is what it is: the best explanation for the incredible variety of life on this small planet in the center of a unverse full of space and hydrogen is the awesome creative power of a God with unlimited intelligence."
It's a theory. Now it's time to lay your cards down on the table and have a look at your evidence supporting that theory. What have you got?
After all, while we might argue about the worth of those cards, it's rather difficult to avoid admitting that the biologists do have a few ;)