Yeah, I misspoke, since you have become, for this discussion, the voice of a certain position.

Let me rephrase: I don't see creationists consistently claiming that protons and neutrons are 'just a theory' or 'not science'. But the same kinds of indirect evidence (yes, and assumptions) underlie the processes we use to understand subatomic particles as those we use to understand the origin, proliferation and complexity of life.

Sometimes it's called artificial selection.

I have not read where creationists are critical of that. The questions bare repeating. What is the indirect evidence that organic life evolved from non-organic matter? How could this supposedly unicellular organism acquire new genetic material so mutations could cause more complex species?

Two different questions. The first is an acknowledged very difficult one, with only tentative theories to explain it. I'll have a better go at the second when I have a litle more time later today.

But the fact that creationists are *not* critical of subatomic particle physics is *exactly* my point. Subatomic particle physics relies entirely on indirect evidence. So does evolution. If creationists criticise one, then they should criticise the other in order to be logically consistent.

[quote]consistent/quote], you want What!!

Here's something on new genetic information: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html

Very interesting, but sensible and logical. We, speck of dust in the universe, simply do not have the capacity to understand the process of creation that God did on this earth. We put far to many limits on Him. I don't see anything in the article that would deny a supreme creator/designer...I believe the whole process of genetics points toward such a being! (don't ask me me for a valid explanation)

I don't see how the article explains how a very simple unicellular organism could acquire new genetic material so mutations could cause more complex species. And that is science.

In the study of origins we not only have to look at science, but also mathematics. What is the probability of certain things happening even if they are possible? In all honestly, the odds of God putting all the animals on the ark for a year are significantly greater than some of these scientific theories. We shouldn't lose sight of that in discussing origins.

I can't address subatomic particles because I am just not well versed in that at all. The indirect evidence for macro-evolution as a lot to do with the observer's worldview. There is a lot a circular reasoning that goes on in the "science" or origins. I don't know if that exists in the science of subatomic particles or not.