I commend those who ask questions and don't just accept everything uncritically, but certain forms of adaptation have been observed and are as factual as the sun being at the center of the solar system.
That being said, it is important to form our parameters and define our terms. To say that because we have observed adaptation in some cases necessarily means that it can be applied universally is indeed fallacious, but good scientists will acknowledge that this is not what they are doing. They are doing what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn explained. Scientists adopt the paradigm that best explains relevant observations. When a new paradigm is developed that better explains observations, the old paradigm is replaced.
If I were a detective and I observed a corpse with a knife in its back and thus assumed that this was the cause of death, my assumption would not be a logical claim that there is no other possible way in which events took place, but only that, given the evidence I have observed, it seems the most likely outcome. Likewise, in positing evolution and adaptation as the best explanations of life as we now know it, scientists are not necessarily claiming there is no other feasible possibility that explains life(although some might fallaciously make such a claim) but rather that there is no better explanation. The mistake scientists make is when prejudice leads them to unfairly rule out other possibilities.
I agree with you here, TS, except for one thing - the basis on which you determine what is " better". This, like ALL thought, is done through the prism of one's world view. I think people in general do not understand how philosophy works, that in our time the science has died, and no one is therefore educated in it - yet all other worldly knowledge is founded on it.
As far as I can tell, there is not a single Orthodox Christian here who has personally, with great knowledge and experience, examined all of the evidence alleged as such from beginning to end and followed the entire chain of the scientific method, forming hypotheses, experimenting, then theories and so on. Everyone here takes, at some point or other, and nearly all at most points, on faith. Faith that what they are told is TRUE. Faith that the scientists, in all of their effort and work and struggle, get it RIGHT. You have not really seen all of the evidence. You have seen bits and pieces, you understand what the claimants are trying to say and you accept it - on FAITH.
Rather than blow--by-blow responses - which might be better - Greg and Shieldmaiden might get that I see and read them and am addressing their thoughts, too - I'll say briefly that the discussion here is largely unphilosophical, because everyone takes their assumptions for granted. We are all guilty of bigotry, ladies and gentlemen, for the essence of bigotry is the incapacity to conceive of an alternative to our own proposition. If I asked what our first principles of thought are, I doubt that many could give clear answers.
All thought, all conclusions based on observed facts, are founded on a particular philosophy, or world view. That understanding of the nature of things is congruent or incongruent with the objective reality which we are all trying to apprehend. It is a tremendous mistake to begin from a conclusion, such as "evolution", or even "a (n alleged) mass of evidence that points to evolution", because the seeing of the direction pointed to is founded on said world view. Unless we begin from square one, and re-examine ALL claimed evidence step-by-step in light of Orthodox truth, we cannot possibly treat ANY scientific claims as having any degree of dogmatic truth. I, for one, do not insist on creation in 6 24-hr days for that very reason. I can conceive God creating things slowly OR quickly. It is my firm OPINION - based on philosophy, NOT scientific claims - that man was created specially by God, and NOT by evolution - that man and the world were not Fallen until Man fell, that death entered into the world by sin, not by the struggles of single-celled organisms.
It is very telling and usually ignored that the modern theory was introduced and championed, first by a very sincere agnostic, and then by radical unbelievers. Their entire philosophy, view of the world was wrong, yet we are asked to believe that they were right about the fundamental issue of creation. I used to give science and scientists more credit - until I figured out that they are wholly unphilosophical.
Oh, and a side note to Greg - if we say "evolution" can sometimes mean "change", then we are mixing and matching terms in a fatal misunderstanding in a discussion of the topic. Clarity of terminology is strongly recommended.
