Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

Where did you find that exceedingly odd "rule," Archangel? Not in the biological literature, I'll bet - more likely in some tract from Kent Hovind, it sounds like.It's utterly false! A nematode or typanosome almost certainly has no "desire to improve" at all, or anything else we could realistically call a "desire." They're biologically/chemically "driven" to seek nutrition and make babies, I guess, but that's hardly a desire to survive.Oh, and welcome to EvC!

Does this mean you're the handsome youth in Jack Chick's tract "Big Daddy?"Does "real science" exclude all of Fred Hoyle's work on stellar nucleosynthesis because we can't make a star in the lab? Are supernovae something other than exploding stars?

No, I'm not doing that at all. You claimed that it ain't science unless you can reproduce it in the lab. Hoyle and Burbridge's crazy babbling about four protons colliding to make helium and three heliums colliding to make carbon have not been replicated on Earth as of yet. So that makes it your claim that stars run off some other-than-fusion energy source, not mine.And if you'll frame a question for me to address about your c&p, I'll give it a shot.