On the Origin of Species; The Evolution of Fallacy

I've said before that I'm not an expert and my opinion on scientific matters carries little weight. I also know there are a lot of opinions about a lot of things even though, of course, there is only one Truth. But, some in the professional community tout their opinions as facts and push for them to be society's accepted view of the subject. Many professionals do this in violation of their own definition of what a fact is.

The current definition of a scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true, although its truth is never final. (http://www.websters-online-dictionary...). When I looked this up I noticed that the definition has changed since I was in school. I was taught that a scientific fact was something that could be repeatedly demonstrated not "confirmed repeatedly." I think someone changed the rules in order to declare something a fact that, in fact, isn't. And, I think those someones are the evolutionists. I also noticed the addition of "although its truth is never final." I guess that does away with absolute Truth.

When it comes to evolution, scientists base their theory on observations that, admittedly, could lead one, especially one with an atheistic worldview, to believe that one species evolved into another over millions of years. However, there are major holes in the theory and the scientists refuse to acknowledge the possibility of the theory being incorrect. And, even using their own altered definition, evolution still doesn't qualify as a scientific fact as it has not been confirmed and is not even close to being universally accepted as true. But, even worse than their refusal to acknowledge other possibilities is their condemnation of those who believe something other than their standard line.

The theory of evolution is based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is a supposed natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment (http://www.websters-online-dictionary...). To expand on that, it is my understanding that natural selection supposedly takes place when a mutation occurs in a species that causes the individual with the mutation to be more successful in life which, in turn, will cause that individual to survive longer. Therefore, the individual will produce more offspring allowing for the passing of the mutated gene to the next generation. Those without the gene will die sooner and produce less offspring. Some of these mutations have supposedly included eyesight, hearing and flight.

It seems logical that, in order for this theory to work, these mutated individuals would have had to have been born with this mutation completely developed. Otherwise the mutation would have had no consequence or would have been a hindrance. The possibility of an individual being born with one of these fully developed mutations is as likely as one of our children being born able to fly. Not only that, the individual would have been a freak likely decreasing its desire by members of the opposite sex.

Another problem with the theory is that, if it were true, the earth would be littered with the remains of crossover species. The scientists will point out a few, such as the archaeopteryx, but not the thousands necessary to support the theory.

Another problematic example would be in the area of reproduction. In order for our supposed single cell ancestor to reproduce, it had to divide itself into two individuals. The idea that this process developed into a species with two genders having not only different but coincidentally corresponding sex organs is extremely unlikely. But even more unlikely is the development of desire in one to mate with the other. It is beyond fantastic.

I am willing to concede that intelligent design cannot be scientifically proven. Are you, the evolutionist, willing to concede the same about your belief?