James,

I'm not directing this reply toward you whatsoever but I almost fell off my computer chair when I saw yet again that this was the subject I get a reply on! It is a very touchy and controversial area and always gets a rise out of people on both sides of the debate. I have several dozen articles out there on this subject and I'll be brief in saying that I point out that the fossil record especially doesn't contain proof of evolution although it does contain proof of a very ancient earth. Cell studies including DNA and proteins can just as easily point to intelligent design as they do to an evoluionary process. Scientific announcements have been made for decades that claim more proof of evolution and the much of the public simply accepts it. Amazingly when you ask most people why they believe evolution as a proven theory, they can't give specifics but usually just say to the effect because it's as much fact as gravity is etc... I promise I'm not quoting you and definitely not mocking, I'm pointing out that the "fact" and "gravity" analogy is often quoted more as an impress technique when subtance of facts is what's needed when presenting the evolution side of the debate (no offense intended whatsoever). You absolutely cannot observe evolution if it were factual because it is a process proposed to take millions of years for even the most min-ute change to occur. Cell evolution, so-called and DNA changes are simply the observance of changes during the lifetime of cells, just like a person changes during their lifetime. Huge stretches have been placed in study conclusions such as proposed observance of adaptation changes seen in DNA that go beyond what is actually occurring. These actually should be there in-perspective because a degree of adaptation and natural selection (in-balance) would be fallacy if left out even when looked at from creation standpoint. The evolution of lower species to higher species is what is really the debate and I do not believe it has been proven, nor do I believe it ever will be.
I'm not alone in believing evoltionary theory as unproven. There are many associations of scientists organized for the purpose of creation science research, including The Creation Research Society, The Discovery Institute and The Institute for Creation Research. Over 700 Scientists from every field signed a petition in 2008 (many with Doctorates), offered by the Discovery Institute stating that they do not believe evolution can explain or account for the "complexity of life" and that they believe the theory needs re-evaluated on an ongoing basis. In other words, they see the same problems most of us see and the incrediblly large amount of holes and unanswered questions the theory poses.
I stated this somewhat straightforwardly but please don't see it as an attack because I totally respect your opinion. I'm just expressing my right of opinion and belief. The majority of people in the U.S, for example do not accept the theory of evolution (only 39%). While a larger percent of scientists do believe in it, much of the reason is because scientific study largely looks at scientific theory (it has a strong definition) and they for the most part are obligated to leave out of studies, anything that is not related to physics.
I didn't intend to post so long but needed to express my stance and why I offer my side which in my opinion helps bring perspective just as two sides are needed for any debated. Thanks for commenting!
(Added: also, you can't leave belief out of a position that looks at creationism because whatever brings something into exisense is also what sustains it from that view. It's not necessarily a religious view, some people believe in direct creation but do not claim a religion.)