Scientific proof for a theist.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's a few points:
* There is no barrier between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." They are, in fact, the same process on different scales. Indeed, actual scientists rarely, if ever, use those terms.
* There are beneficial mutations. Google Richard Lenski for just one example discovered under scientific controls.
* The fact that there is controversy as to how evolution occurs does not mean that evolution does not happen any more than the fact that there is controversy about just who shot JFK means he's still alive.
* The creationist demand for "transitional forms" will never be satisfied until we have a fossil of every life form from the first single-celled organism to Erasmus Darwin. This will not happen. In reality, every fossil is, in fact, a transitional form.
* "Living Fossils" are not disproof of evolution. They haven't changed because they haven't needed to change.
* The eye is not irreducibly complex. Even Charles Darwin acknowledged this in his Origin of Species.
* A Transitional Form would not have any parts that seem to have failed growths. If they did, they wouldn't have survived.
* The fact that the evolution of life may be more complicated than a simple "Tree of Life" does not mean life was created.
* Ernst Haeckel's embryological drawings are not considered major pieces of evidence for evolution, and were discredited after less than a decade.
* Evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
* Irreducible complexity doesn't work.

In case you want more detail, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Here's another point: If a person's job or religious faith depends on a person not understanding something, you can count on them not understanding it.