Assumptions of ToE

They don't collect data to prove or validate so much as to work out whether their hypothesis is potentially true or definitely false.As I and many others have said, a definite negative is in many ways better than a weak positive. As long as you meant that then I think there's no real issue there. If you haven't read the origin of species, you should make the effort. It's surprisingly readable.What led Darwin to his theory isn't that things change - because they did and do - but the idea behind how this change could occur.The theory has nothing to do with the origin of life and everything to do with how come nature could effect change on the scale that it was apparent it already had.In that respect, that's all Darwin needed - that the data he collected was true and that the logic he used to come to his conclusion was without fault.He didn't know about genetics, he didn't know about the mechanism behind mutation and adaptation. He DID know about breeding, selection and the facts of the animal kingdom that he went out there to examine.So where in there is the assumption? Besides the product of his theory?If you want to say he assumed this theory was true, then sure - but that's not an assumption used in the theory itself.The age of the Earth had nothing - zip, zilch, nada - to do with his theory. Neither did special creation or the origin of life.

well...some do, I'm sure. And others will read the data and check it out for true or false, others will pick it apart and find the holes where it doesn't match up, still others will do meta-analysis and come up with data you didn't know you had.That's why peer review is so terribly, terribly important.The best scientists though work from the data, through to a hypothesis and finally arrive at a theory. If you're setting out to specifically prove your pet theory (lesser meaning here) true, you'll probably not end up doing good science. If something's not apparent because you're not ready or willing to look for it, does that mean it's not apparent, or that you're not ready or willing to look for it?Seriously though, if he wasn't a naturalist until he looked at the evidence, and even through the bias of a creationist' mindset saw "the truth" (yes, we're arguing about that, forgive me) then that must have been some pretty powerful evidence.I'm not sure if he thought man and monkey had a common ancestor - I do know he said right there in the book (I have the penguin edition from 1985, apparently) that he doesn't know the origin of life itself, and even if they didn't, it doesn't stop evolution from having occured.And finally, you may have something on the age of the Earth in that I'm reasonably convinced that learned men of the time already knew the Earth was older than 6000 years - but then you're missing what I mean in that evolution had occured even before we knew what it was. the timescale helped, but isn't a barrier (it just reinforces the old-Earth view gleaned from the evidence).