Wow, I am indeed stunned. You have taken your first steps in following scientific methodology, very rare for a creationist. Admit you don't know and plan for discovery. This very attitude has given us some of the greatest scientific minds in history.
A little background on me:
I have always accepted ToE to be accurate, but only recently became interested in the Debate. This started after I heard someone talk about the Moon Dust argument. Along with that, some were saying that ToE was "in crisis." Accepting this at face value, I looked into creationist claims and data, and also the rebuttals by supporters of evolution. What I found from creationists was far from scientific, more like high hopes. Misrepresentation and faulty methodology seemed to be the rule, not the exception. Being a scientist myself, I found it very insulting that they were claiming this was science. If someone in my field were as reckless as some have been in the name of "creation science" they would be out of a job.
My suggestion to you is not only learn about the biology of nature, but also about the practice of science. Science has its own language and context that isn't used in every day conversation. Guess, hypothesis, theory and law all have different meanings in a scientific discussion as compared to everyday life. Thinking critically about evidence and falsification is a part of all science, not just evolution.
One more suggestion, before this turns into a sermon, you might want to read a little philosophy. My favorites, as I apply them to science, are Pascal and Socrates (via Plato). More specifically, Pascal has a dream in which he wakes up to realize that he is still dreaming. A dream within a dream. He comes to the realization that he can't know if he's dreaming right now or if its reality. Hence the phrase "I think therefore I am". All we can know is that we think, everything else can't be absolutely proven. Hence, no absolute proof in science. Socrates talked about perfect forms. For example, everyone knows what a perfect circle is and it can be defined, yet know one can draw a perfect circle (think about the irregular shape atoms and atomic bonds and how that would make a circle "bumpy" if constructed of a ring of atoms). In science, we can explain and define certain phenomena without being able to replicate it. Philosophy is a great place for critical thinking and the use of logic.
People on this board and others have long waited for an intelligent conversation on SCIENCE and implications of this in ToE, and hopefully you can do this. Good luck, hope to hear back from you.
™ Version 4.2
