Evolution stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. You are certainly free to dismiss gravitaional theory for example, but an apple won't be suspended in mid-air after falling out of a tree, because you don't believe it. That, my friend, is how science works. Oh, and evolution has indeed been observed in the lab as well as in the field
"Evolution stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts"... actually in all the web sites I visited the last two days and some text books I reveiwed do not use "facts" by the word "evidence". Evidence is not fact, but supports one's belief to what they veiw as fact. Your example of gravity... I doubt anyone here would argue the value of gravity and clear "eye-seeing" truth to the fact an apple would fall. Believing gravity to no faith, it is clearing seen by the eye in objects.
There are no witnessed recordings to the creation or evolution. No one recorded what happened... we surmise. Those who take the Bible as truth, of course in faith believe the creation account. Those who take the evidences of evolution take that as truth, of course in faith - that evolution is correct. (although science does not set out to establish truth according to science itself).
Those (like me) who take the Bible as the measure in one's life, do not necessarily dismiss science. I am using at this moment a result of science (computer) - and so I am not opposed to science. What I have studied of science and "how it works" again, I do not dispute. But what most people don't understand is science does not establish truth. "When a scientist says something has been found to be 'true', what is meant isn't any form of absolute truth. Likewise scientists' use of 'reality' and 'belief' don't imply finality or dogmatism. But if we inquire whether a scientist believes in an underlying reality behind our sense impressions, we are compounding two tricky words into a philosophical question for which we have no way to arrive at a testable answer. (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/method.htm)" By science's own definition they can't not say I'm incorrect as to creation - for their is no truth (absolute) to science itself. The dependablilty of the lab results being reduplicated lend itself to to evidence of fact, but never absolute truth.
Evolution of change in the lab... ok... if that is what we are calling evolution these days. As to origins of life, however, evolution is not reduplicated in the lab.
"Like every other science, there is scientific debate about some aspects of evolution, but none of these debates appear likely to shake the foundations of this field. There exists no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns in nature, only non-scientific explanations that require a miraculous force, like a creator. Such super-natural explanations lie outside of science, which can neither prove nor disprove miracles. Science provides us with a compelling account and explanation of the changing life on Earth. It should also remind us of our good fortune to have come into being and our great responsibility to ensure the continuity of life."
(Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.,
Evolution: Fact and Theory by Richard E. Lenski, Ph.D.)
