Try as one might, evolution must remain a "theory" as opposed to a demonstrated fact: Nobody has
ever seen a single species evolve, and given the time required for such a thing to occur, the odds
are likely that nobody ever will: the often-cited examples of "micro-evolution", such as the
shifting of color morphs in industrial English moth populations, are simply demonstrations of the
often-surprising variability inherant within any successful species of organism, which must adapt to
circumstances or become extinct or marginal, have little bearing upon the emergance of new
species.// ***THAT SAID***, much of this disccussion (like many others on the list) is  mainly a
matter of semantics: evolution is a theory which most scientists would agree is quite
"well-supported" and useful in a predictive sense (all good theories have predictive value!) - it
fits the facts which we can observe rather better than the Creationists' hypotheses and assertions:
as a scientist i can say this, even though as an Adventist, i  - o forget it: I am completely open
to any theory that best expains the observable facts, in a solidly scientific manner, although i
firmly believe in Creation per se - but not nessessarily in a 6-day event which occured in 4004 B.C.
(although if further observed facts support that hypothesis better than evolutionary ones, i will
fall into line behind it! - meanwhile, in a scientific sense, i must say that the latter seem to
have much better observational support!!)
Aloha to all,
Ross M.