I appreciate your urging readers to research the subject of evolution for themselves in this article and your reply to a comment.

Many scientific disciplines contribute to the current understanding of evolution: evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, ecology and animal behavior, anthropology and archeology, geology and paleoclimatology for example. Each of these fields are highly specialized and require significant investments in time and education to fully understand. Scientists, whatever their religious leanings, often spend a lifetime studying and researching just one of these disciplines. Understanding the scientific terminology, let alone the specifics of each field, is beyond nearly all of us not trained in the sciences. Thus, researching the evidence for evolution proves to be a difficult task.

I've been looking at Creationist sites, as you suggested, and I'm wondering what the difference is between responsible Creationist sites and those which aren't? Could you provide a list of the sites you recommend? In any event, in the mission statements of the sites I visited, each included statements affirming their organization's firm commitment to the premise that the earth is young and was created in six days. For these organizations, Young Earth Creationism is the filter through which all evidence must be interpreted. You mentioned the bias of materialism through which "secular" scientists analyze data which renders their conclusions to be untrustworthy. If the scientific method is to be properly applied, shouldn't science be allowed to lead wherever it leads, without insisting that all evidence fit one paradigm or the other? You mentioned not being opposed to research into difficult questions. Every discovery from creating fire to black holes and quantum mechanics was, of course, unknown at one time. At what point then should research into currently unknown subjects stop with the conclusion that they're unanswerable and can only be attributed to God?

Speaking of "secular" scientists, I couldn't find any data outside of Creationist sites supporting the idea that most "evolutionists" are atheists, if the term "evolutionist" describes anyone who accepts that evolution from common ancestry has occurred. It's somewhat difficult to discern the beliefs of scientists as a lack of religious affiliation doesn't exclude belief in a higher power or agnosticism but according to surveys by Pew Research, The Institute for Environmental Research and Education, Sage Journals and Live Science, just over half of all scientists believe in a God or a higher power with about 40% indicating that they lack belief in a deity, which again, doesn't discount agnosticism. From what I could find, within religious groups, Catholicism, many Mainline Protestants, Sikhs, members of the Baha'i faith, many Hindus, depending on what branch they follow, most Buddhists and about 25% of Muslims all accept what is often referred to as "macro-evolution" within Creationist circles and that the Earth is ancient. Of course, individuals and smaller groups within may not agree with their denomination's stand on the subject. Pew Research has a nice breakdown by country regarding the "nones" who have no religious affiliation but have a belief in some sort of higher power and a breakdown by country regarding acceptance levels of evolution at the bottom half of the article, "Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies to Treat Disease". Wikipedia has some good information under "Level of Support for Evolution". There's also an article written by Joel W. Martin titled "Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution" which speaks to the subject. To me, it appears that acceptance of evolution has little do with atheism and is more dependent on a person's religious views. Of course, lacking a belief in God is not the same as denying that God exists, and most atheists seem to be agnostic on the issue. From what I could discover, most scientists and laymen believe that the theory of evolution provides the best model we have for explaining the diversity of life on Earth and does not preclude a belief in a God or higher power.

I visited two public High Schools and spoke with several of their biology instructors regarding the teaching of evolution. I realize I'm not telling you anything you don't already know but they explained that High School science classes are intended to introduce students to the general principles of various disciplines, with a goal of providing general understanding and are not designed to dive too deeply into all the underlying and supporting evidence and methods. Those topics are examined in much more depth in collegiate and post-grad studies for those people specializing in fields which require a much more thorough degree of understanding. I did look at their textbooks and saw some diagrams similar to those you mentioned. They appeared to serve the purpose of the class in demonstrating the general principles involved without going deeply into the underlying methodology as the evidence supporting evolution is attributed involves so many disciplines and requires a great deal of specialized knowledge to which High School students would have little or no access. This was confirmed by the Concordia science dept. professors I spoke with next.

I know you recommended treating all non-YEC evidence with suspicion, but it seemed to me that to properly examine both sides of a subject, it's helpful to have some resources to research, particularly for us non-scientists. Since I'm not yet certain what constitutes a responsible Creationist website, I'll rely on you to provide that information and to recommend some books.
.
Here are a few good sites to visit: the Nature journal, Evolution 101 out of the University of CA in Berkely, Scientific American, the Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute, idmoz.org, the National Association of Biology Teachers, Evolution Sites, the Understanding Evolution site as well as the Talk Origins website.

A couple of good books for us laymen are: "Evolution Vs Creationism, An Introduction" by Eugenie Scott.as well as "How I Changed Ny Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science" by J.B..Stump and Katherine Applegate. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic Biology Professor at Brown University recommends: "Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean B. Carroll, "The Devil at Dover" by Lauri Lebo, "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer, "Creationism's Trojan Horse" by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. You can read about why he recommends these five books at: Kenneth Miller recommends the webpage: Best Arguments Against Creationism by Kenneth Miller. A couple of others I found helpful are: "The Counter-Creationism Handbook" by Mark Isaak and "Scientists Confront Creationism, Intelligent Design and Beyond", which is a series of essays compiled by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey.

I'm wondering what you mean when you write that many of the experiments concerning abiogenesis are suspicious. Are you referring to the fact that many experiments don't bring about the desired results? Most scientific experiments don't, of course, but that's a crucial element of the scientific method. Or do you mean something else? If the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, it's not surprising that physical evidence for the beginning of life on Earth would be difficult, if not impossible, to find given tectonic movement and the formation and destruction of the Earth's crust. As I understand it, Abiogenesis is life from non-life but not life magically forming from rocks but rather life forming from the organic compounds found in all life forms and recently found on an asteroid. As counter intuitive as this sounds, I lack the necessary education to analyze the claims of those insisting that evolution from common descent is as close to being a proven fact as science is able to determine. I would have about as much success evaluating the conclusions of Sub-Molecular Physicists at CERN on their theories regarding particle acceleration as I would correcting an Evolutionary Biologist on evolution, or frankly, a trained mechanic on how my car works.

The alternative to understanding, particularly to something as complex and specialized as evolution, is to stick with what we know and to fill in the blanks with assumptions, but that seems to me to present similar issues to those you mentioned regarding an ancient Earth. Is the sky a solid dome separating the waters above it from the waters below? Was man created on the sixth day as in Genesis one or before anything else had been created. as in Genesis 2? How should those passages be interpreted within a literal interpretation the Creation accounts? How do we interpret the account of God in Genesis 2:18-22, when he meets with failure after creating all the animals for the expressed purpose of finding a mate for Adam? How do we interpret the fact that Adam and Eve weren't expelled from the Garden because they ate the fruit off the Tree of Knowledge but rather were cast out because God was afraid that if they ate from the Tree of Life, they would live forever, so is Paul correct in his interpretation that Adam and Eve were created to be immortal? Jumping about a bit, should we, like Luther, dismiss "that fool Copernicus" and insist that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that's what we're told in Joshua. How much science is required before we can alter our interpretations? If the Bible is God's word, what exactly did Jesus mean he when said that it was Moses who allowed men to divorce their wives because of their stubbornness? It seems incongruous to think that the God who insists that holiness requires the Israelites to stone their daughters if they're not virgins on their wedding night and who vows to kill them if they work on the Sabbath would be willing to compromise on a matter as important as the family unit simply because the people were stubborn.

I've often been told that God inspired the authors in the Bible but not mankind's interpretations. With complete respect regarding the power of inductive reasoning, for my 2 cents, it seems dangerous to assume that a scientific framework with several centuries of research behind it, which no one has, thus far, been able to falsify, should be so vigorously dismissed primarily. if not solely, because it appears to run counter to previous interpretations of the Creation Account. Things are true or false on their own, not because of their relationship to anything else. Otherwise, we run the risk of making the belief itself the focus of worship rather than whatever the belief is meant to reveal. 6000 years and 4.5 billion years seems to me to be more than a difference in interpretation, but I look forward to your suggestions regarding evolution and evidence for a worldwide flood and a young Earth.