And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.
And they are also often forgetting the most important thing to remember about science: Most hypothesies will be wrong and are always incomplete (due to not being sure about ever reaching THE correct answer), thus you can find flaws in the theories. But usually it's a modification that's needed and not the complete rewriting that creationists wants to.
Personally, it makes perfect sence. It is how life acts: It always tries to adapt, no matter how the deck is stacked (the genes). So rapid changes gives rapid adaptation. There's also some quite fresh research about the expression of genes, that's very influencial and flexible. Shows signs of Lamackism for example. Wouldn't surprice me if that's a major part of the development of new species.
Bookmarks