*******************************************************************************
kinghippy@juno.com (Caleb J Johnson)
I came to your website per your request, which I have reproduced below. 
I have several problems with your website which center around the
evolution debates.  In a defense of evolution, one of your writers begins
addressing creationists, when it is clear that he is actually arguing
against several fundamentalist claims.  Fundamentalists, of course, are
not true creationists; they do not apply any thought to HOW the creative
process occurred.  They simply say that the Bible teaches it to be so,
and thus they believe.  When people mix the ideas of fundamentalism with
that of creationism, they are indeed able to make those who are ignorant
of the differences believe that creationism is silly and irrational.  As
a matter of fact, however, quite the opposite is true.  Fundamentalism
and creationism are NOT synonyms.

One of the many differences between the two center around the age of the
earth.  A fundamentalist will arbitrarily assume that the age of the
earth must be only a little over 6,000 years old.  He bases this on a
mistaken interpretation of Genesis chapter one, where the Bible says that
God created the earth in "days."  The Fundamentalist, whose mind is
closed to the interpretation of scientific data, arbitrarily demands that
these days be considered literal 24-hour days.  A creationist, however,
is willing to let his interpretation of Scripture be shaped by the
findings of science.  Hence, he has no problem acknowledging that the
time period specified only as "day" could be millions of years in length.
 Day does not necessarily mean 24 hour period.  Even today we speak of
Napoleans "day" or Our grandfather's "day."  

A fundamentalist rejects ALL evidence of evolution, based solely on his
flawed understanding of Scripture.  Not so with a creationist, who
acknowledge that evolution has occurred.  What a creationist questions is
whether ALL species can be attributed to a SINGLE ancestor, or rather the
various forms of life demand the belief that they have evolved (i.e.,
changed,) from many different ancestors.  After all, is it not the
Bible's teaching that all the forms of life on earth today came from a
pool of ancestors small enough to fit inside a large wooden box, (during
the flood.)  While it is not my intent to discuss the validity of the
flood theory, the fact remains that no serious person would teach that
all the many forms of life on earth today could fit, by pairs, in a box
of that sort. Therefore, when one reasons on the Scriptures, it is clear
that even they teach evolution.

What is often overlooked is that when Darwin first advanced his theory,
his main critics were not always creationists, but rather
paleontologists, who objected to his theory on the grounds that it was
not supported by the fossile record.  That fact is still true today, as
evolutionists cannot produce even a single link which links the various
families and kingdoms.

========

I do thank you for visiting my site and replying with your insights,
If you take the Genesis stories as being actual historical physical events,
then real problems follow if you consider science has validity. Even if you
take the "days" of Genesis as undefined periods of time, the Genesis story
has trees before sun moon and stars. You also have animals, plants and people
without ancestors. You have a woman from a man's rib and a talking walking
snake which suddenly lost its legs and ate dust.
The physical evidence from paleontology indicates the first life form seen
in the fossil record is prokaryote bacteria, 3.85 billion years old. The
chemical stages leading to life are still a partial mystery. Nothing higher
is seen until about a billion years ago when eukaryote bacteria appear in
the fossil record. These more complex bacteria have rod shaped chromosomes
instead of the circular chromosomes of the prokaryotes. It  has been
considered that life could have appeared more than once on the early earth,
but was destroyed by the vast bombardment of that time. Look at the moon
for what the early earth must have looked like. 
My files discuss some of the problems and possible partial solutions to the
chemical processes which lead to life. The basic chemical similarity of all
living things indicate a common ancestor in the early Precambrian, left
handed amino acids and a similar genetic code. 
Creationism assumes a Creator, a Person Who interacts with the physical world
in some observable manner. The scientific system ignores the influence of all
proposed deities, as being undetectable. Adding a deity to a science model
has never produced better predictive value than assuming purely physical
processes. 
I agree that the flood story has no science validity. However this story is
referenced in the New Testament as being the basis of a lesson by Jesus, as
is the Adam story. The only part of the Bible which seems to parallel
 evolution is Eccl. chap 3 where it claims man has no advantage over the
animals.
The fossil record is far more complete than you seem to be aware of. I
think you have not had time to study the intermediate stages detailed in
the two evolution files. In addition, the talk.origins newsgroup has files
on intermediates. The main idea is that animals and plants without
ancestors is mythology. I suggest you carefully check out these references.
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
Morphological evidence for a hermit crab ancestry of lithodids
(Crustacea, Decapoda, Anomala, Paguroidea).
The horse, hominid and whale sequence is quite good.
The fossil record now is far more complete than in Darwin's time.
Many obvious transitional fossils have been found in the fossil record.
Strictly speaking, ALL earlier life forms are either transitionals or lead
to extinction. No modern species is found in formations earlier than the
Tertiary period.

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are
abundant between larger groups."
Gould, S.J. (1983) "Evolution as Fact and Theory," reprinted in _Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes_, pp. 253-262.  This was originally published
in _Discover_ magazine, May 1981.

Have you read Darwin's works? Have you read the modern professional science
literature on evolution?  I suspect you have little or no direct experience
in field geology or paleontology. Religious literature is a poor place to get
a science education. I have 50 years experience in both, as an amateur trained
by professionals. That claim that there is inadequate evidence for
intermediates supporting evolution comes from religious sources, not science
sources. You can find scientific references that a particular science model
relating to mechanisms and details of evolution may be incomplete or even
mistaken, but this does not invalidate the fact of evolution. That is the
nature of the scientific process, proposed models published for peer review
in the professional journals. The ideas surviving this process are the basis
of the next stages of investigation. Errors are modified or eliminated.
Only a very small percent of all living things fossilize. This means small
local populations have a tiny chance of being fossilized, found and
scientifically described. It is these small isolated local initial populations
which produce new species. This, and the episodic nature of geological
deposition results in the gaps seen in the fossil sequences. I suggest you
study the book SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY by A. N. Strahler for a better
overview of these processes than I can give here.
Attacking a model of science does not validate a single religious idea, as
the default explanation.
I suggest you study my files and its references at greater length and many
of these questions about evolution will be cleared up.
I am looking forward to your opinions on these matters.
END***************************************************************************