Is evolution possible? What Copernicus proposed as a system, the Church allowed as an exercise. It was not condemend as such. Much like science fiction may discuss other worlds and other life forms. But fiction nonetheless. When Galelleo took it up, he went further. He advocated it was the truth and even further, states that the word of God and the church was in error. This he did on no proof whatsoever, but purely from a preferred position. There is no doubt that from appearances which none can distinguish from illusion, either way, excepting they chose directions of science to conform or explain it, either theory could be correct. It depends from which scientific base the problem is approached. The minority view or the majority acceptance. Thankfully consensus does not confirm scientific truth. For those who accept the revelation of God as the absolute truth, the direction science must take is already decided for us. That it fails to reach a true consensus in the majority of scientific opinion should be of little concern to the Christian, in the matter of the supernatural life, ie of faith. We may treat the subject as an exercise in science, an exercise and nothing else, just so long as we retain and maintain that heliocentrism is heresy, and unacceptable. In the matter of evolution, once again Divine revelation has closed the matter for us. But the position as regards science is vastly different. The science involved with evolution and for evolution is so fraught with speculation and so litle to do with evidence normal to the scientific method, that one could say it is non existent. Whereas I could state above that there is a good case for scientific discussion of either side in geocentrism versus heliocentrism, such is not the case when we debate creation versus evolution. In creation, the scientific method cannot be applied. It is purely a matter of revelation and faith. The scientific method cannot be applied within the rules of secular science which forbids the examination of revelation and or any evidence which supports it. The reason, according to Paul, is the random nature, and non repeatability of what is called supernatural phenomena. Yet repeatedly I hear from evolutionist supporters, mention of the randomness and nonrepeatibility of the processes believed to be responsible for where we have evolved to, today. All of the alleged processes, with all their complexity and variation are faith based upon the examples of natural selection presented to the world by one man, Charles Darwin. There is nothing else. They have absolutely no evidence of cross species evolution, or new species evolution. Not one atom of organic biological matter has ever been duplicated, let alone living biological material. I would never be so bold as to go with Jack and say that they will never acomplish such an experiment. History is replete with examples of the people of God falling into that trap. But I do side with Jack when he states that evolutionists have very little to support their case other than FAITH in the belief that natural selection in a single species can develop new and different species. I do not condemn that approach. Such faith is what drove Edison on till he discovered an electric light that worked. Such is not a religious or supernatural faith. Nevertheless, notwithstanding all of that, and in keeping with the Word and revelation of God, that he created the world some few thousand years ago, I can state with certainty that He created an evolved world. He did. From the moment everything was created, even Adam and Eve, all had an age, considerably older in years and aeons than the microsecond of creation. From this I can defend my position, that as an exercise, I may, without denying creation, consider the science of evolution beginning with just two equal and opposite non material electrical charges called a proton and an electron. From there, I can understand how the Pauls and Dawkins of the world can have hope in discovering or conjecturing on the complete mechanisms that caused the diversity we have today. All that remains is for me to get them to consider this question. "If you are to consider such random and unrepeatable forces in nature, why do you exclude a prime source and mover, and other forces, which are called supernatural because they are random and unrepeatable? Whatever the reason, this is still a denial of evidence. . " Philip.