This is a lawyer's take on the creation/evolution debate:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-a-lowly-lawyer-make-a-useful-contribution-maybe/-"Consider the following claim: Evolution is a fact.-"Yes it is, and it most certainly is not, depending on what one means by the word “evolution.” If all you mean is that living things were different in the past than they are now, then sure. Even YEC's believe that. But if you mean that modern materialist evolutionary theory has been proven to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold consent, then the statement is absolutely not a fact. Even materialist evolutionists dispute such vital issues as the relative importance of natural selection. This is quite aside from the fact that many people (especially ID proponents) do not believe the theory is even plausible, far less unassailable.-"Yet I can't tell you how many times I have caught materialists in this very equivocation. I do not believe that materialists are always being intentionally misleading when they say this. Some are but not all. Those in the latter group have a commitment to materialist metaphysics that is so strong that they often cannot tell where their metaphysics ends and their empirical observations begin. A person who allows his materialist metaphysical commitments to blind him, may truly believe that the mere fact that living things are different now than they were in the past is, on its face, evidence for materialist evolutionary theory. Why? Because if materialism is true, then materialist evolutionary theory must also be true as a matter of simple logic even before we get to the evidence.-"And as a matter of strict logic, they are correct. The conclusion follows from the premises. The argument is valid. But what materialist fundamentalists never stop to ask is whether the argument is also sound. Is that crucial premise “metaphysical materialism is true” a false statement? There are good reasons to believe that it is, and sometimes it takes someone with a good baloney detector - someone like a lawyer - to clue them in on this. As astounding as it seems, it is very often the case that materialist evolutionists not only fail to acknowledge an unstated assumption that is absolutely critical to their argument; but also they fail to even know that they've made that assumption in the first place and that that assumption might possibly be false. I can help them understand those things."-Comment: Since I accept that some form of evolution occurred, the only logical solution for me to answer the lawyer's viewpoint and criticism is to follow 'theistic evolution' which is obviously a form of creationism.