Science confirms that there is not one observation of dust,rocks,gas,sun-light producing a horse, or rabbit, or amoeba, or bacteria over time.
Science confirms that observations of over 80,000 generations of bacteria in the "long running evolution experiment" results in "more bacteria" - i.e. more prokaryotes - and not a single eukaryote. That's more generations of direct observation than supposedly it took for humans to evolve in the first place.
Science confirms that when something vastly complex in terms of machinery with encoding, decoding , manufacture, error-correction is detected it is a sign of intelligent design and manufacture and not merely a function of what we expect from dust,gas,rocks and sunlight "in sufficient quantities given enough time and chance".
The Bible says that it is infinite capability, infinite wisdom and power that is the "cause" the origin of that vastly complex machinery with encoding, decoding , manufacture, error-correction mechanism fully functional and autonomous.
To many rational minds this idea of the creator having more capability and intelligence than the thing created - makes sense and fits what we observe in real life.
By contrast -- the problem for evolution's doctrine on origins is so big that we could even see a world class atheist scientist - a true believer in Evolution's doctrine on origins - lamenting the problem that they are stuck with.
======================
Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
"You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
"I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.
"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.
"You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
