Thanks for sharing your perspective on the issue.

That has to be REALLY frustrating.

I don't "test for design/God in molecules," but I certainly don't ignore evidence for design just because it doesn't fit the current scientific premise that science shouldn't recognize a designer. And I can certainly study molecules without having to assume that they were NOT designed.

Unfortunately, much of the science in question can't be repeated in anyone's lab. We'll never be able to recreate the conditions under which life first emerged. We'll never be able to recreate the the Big Bang to determine whether it could have really happened. We'll never be able to reproduce the deposition of sediments and dead animals all over the earth to prove exactly how and when they happened. We can't bring small pieces of debris together in space quickly enough to prove that that's how planets are formed (which is what I heard on a science program yesterday). My point is that much of what science addresses cannot be directly tested with experiments.

That's why, as you know, much of scientific interpretation involves proposing models (mathematical and otherwise) and testing those models to see whether they can accurately describe or predict the data. If the data don't fit the model, then the model has to be discarded or modified until it fits the data. A good example of this is our description of the atom. We can't see individual atoms, so over the years scientists have proposed a series of models to describe what they think atoms look like. Those models been revised as more data has become available (Bohr's model was great for hydrogen but doesn't adequately describe the data we see for more complex atoms).  Right now the quantum mechanical model is serving scientists fairly well although it's not perfect.

Evolution also involves the use of models. (I'm talking about the slime-to-man part of evolution here, not natural selection which is easily observed). As you pointed out, Darwin didn't have all the answers -- that's why you and others have expanded his model. Creationism also involves models, as does Intelligent Design. From a scientific standpoint, none of these models can definitively answer the question of how the life came into being. Each (including the evolution model) is best evaluated by comparing the data we have to what the model predicts. The evolution model says that life and its diversity happened without any outside influence, while the intelligent design model says that an outside influence played a part in the diversity we see. Each model is an equally valid starting point from which to evaluate the data; the "unscientific" models will be disproven if the data do not support them.

What REALLY bothers me about the theory of evolution is that it is being presented to the public as FACT rather than as a a working model -- and its "factual" nature is being promoted to the point of being indoctrination. For example, last time I visited a small but prestigious science museum in our area there was a dinosaur exhibit designed for school children. It had a dinosaur literally surrounded by birds. The big message of the exhibit was that dinosaurs evolved into birds (never mind that the study of dinosaurs is interesting in its own right...). Soon after that I visited the new amphibian exhibit at our local zoo. The main focus of the exhibit (in bold letters, displayed over the cage) was "EVOLUTION" -- as if the amphibians had to be viewed not for their own interest but in terms of their part in the evolutionary chain. And in school, the slime-to-man concept is pushed in the books as if it's a proven fact and not a working theory.

I own a copy of the DVD The Priviledged Planet, a fascinating documentary which lines up several pieces of scientific evidence suggesting that "the conditions that allow for intelligent life on Earth also make it strangely well suited for viewing and analyzing the universe." While such a collection of evidence cannot prove that the universe was designed, it would certainly be bad science to ignore the possibility of design simply because it doesn't fit one's premise that the material universe has to be the result of random forces. On a side note, my son wanted to share the DVD with his 8th grade class, but when he offered it to the teacher she immediately (and without discusing the matter with him) gave it to the principal, who sent it on to the head of science curriculum for the entire school district -- who agreed that it was a great DVD but nixed it because there was one line near the end that raised the possibility of a creator.

I truly applaude your advances. I know that much has been done to document and use mutations. But (and this is a sincere question) has anything been done to turn amphibians to reptiles or birds to mammals? Mutated bacteria fall within the "natural selection" realm, but the real issue at the root of the evolution-creation debate is whether life happened on its own and whether reptiles can really breed their way into birds.

Perhaps science also needs to come up with a good explanation for why the study of nature has to assume that no design was involved. As I suggested above, nature is fascinating and can be studied for what it is; its origin doesn't make what it is any less fascinating. The eye is a marvelous piece of equipment -- no less marvelous and interesting if it is the product of design than if it just happened by chance. In either case, it's worth studying.