While it is undeniably true that the theory of evolution has so far only been proven in terms of slight change over a comparitively short period of time, that accomplishment is still one proven fact greater than theology and creationism have managed to show for their two or three thousand years of sustained effort.

If you are open to reason and the evidence, you might be surprised at what has been proved, and can be proved in regard to the existence of God, although I can only point the way here.

Have you considered the recent work of Anthony Flew, a British philosopher who for decades was a prominent atheist, but who now admits that reason assures us that there is a God (considered as first cause and designer of the universe)? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew.

Have you considered the fact that empirical science relies upon rules of logic for the validity of its inferences? Those rules of logic cannot be proved by empirical science. They are a condition for the possiblity of such science. This shows that empirical science, for all of its accomplishments, is not the only avenue of rational inquiry. There can be rational arguments, such as the metaphysical arguments for God's existence, which are not dependent upon empirical verification. The logical positivists had a verification principle which said that something that cannot be empirically verified or falsified is meaningless. Then one day someone pointed out that the verification principle cannot be empirically verified.

To briefly sketch a more complex metaphysical argument, one begins with the principle that what has been efficiently caused cannot cause itself, because then it would precede itself, which is impossible. Therefore there must ultimately be an uncaused cause (i.e. God) to account for all caused things.

Have you considered the procedure of the Catholic Church for canonization of saints? A miracle must be proved, which is usually a cure from an uncurable illness which cannot be explained by medical science. The miracle is attributed to the intercession of the saint, and ultimately to God.

Have you considered the evidence of the incorrupt bodies of saints? See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous#Bernadette.27s_body_ex...

I'm afraid I don't understand the correlation you're suggesting between evolution and incorruptibility, but I think you might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocere

Evolution, when presented dogmatically as an all-embracing cosmological theory, only allows for the ordinary operation of natural causes and denies the possibility of intervention by any supernatural cause. But in the case of incorrupt bodies, we see a phenomenon that is not explained by the ordinary operation of natural causes. Ordinarily the human body decays or becomes disfigured. There is no comparison between the corpse of St. Bernadette and one that is "preserved" by the ordinary natural process of adipocere. Consider the example of the Soap Lady or Soap Woman of Philadelphia's Mutter Museum, whose corpse is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on adipocere you have linked. Here we have a link to an image of that grotesque and disfigured corpse: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/PAPHImut.html

I don't want to make any metaphysical arguements on this post, I just want to comment on Mr Klassen's letter. Most scientists who study natural history don't use terms like micro or macro evolution, to them it's the same thing, it just happens over a broader time scale. In a few hundred-thousand years you get different species of finches. In a few tens of millions of years you get mammals from synapsid reptiles. The terms also seem to imply a direct line of decent and evolution is a much more complicated process then that. Evolution, maco, micro or otherwise has nothing to do with, "inanimate matter and laws governing it", as Mr Klassen suggests. Matter isn't always inanimate for one thing. The sun isn't alive but it's definately not inanimate either. Gasses are pretty active as long as they're kept warm. The orgainic molecules that make up all living things are plentiful in the universe. Scientists have found them in comets, in the gaseous atmosphere of Titian (Saturn's largest moon) and have even been able to create them in the lab by mimicing the earth's original atmosphere. The process by which these moleclues eventually assembled themselves to become life is still unknown, but this doesn't discredit Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is about that pesky, "sole mechanism of random mutation and natural selection", that so troubles Mr Klassen. (Although that's two mechanisms, but who's counting?) It doesn't dwell on life's origins, just the changes that happened to that life once it arose. As for "the origin of the stuff that makes up the universe". It's not a troubling mystery, it's well known that most of the matter in the universe came from the thermonuclear reactions in stars. (The rest came from the big bang but I suspect Mr Klassen had a problem with that theory as well) We are their children both literally and metaphorically.

Hence the dense, beautiful poetry of Joni Mitchell's line: "We are stardust. We are golden. And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."

It never ceases to amaze me how this debate refuses to go down the drain, just keeps circling. In reference to Mr Klassen's article, his distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, upon which most of his argument hinges, is an erroneous one, for the mechanisms that drive micro-evolution are more than sufficient in describing the things we see at marco-evolutionary scales. One simply cannot disconnect the two. I have seen in subsequent letters assertions that rational, logical, and metaphysical explanations for the existence of god (which are not dependent on empirical science) are equally powerful explanations for the nature of things. That's magic. Let metaphysical musings and religious thought flourish, just stop trying to nudge it into the science classroom (for this is where this is all leading, no?). The fact remains- biological evolution is, and remains, the best explanation we have for the enormous number of patterns described thus far in the natural world. Creationists are always trying to get scientists to prove that evolution is a fact and not a theory. Why can't creationists understand that in science theories are not 'hunches' or guesses at things, but accumulations of rigorously tested observations and hypotheses about the world? Even I (a most irreverent soul) accepts that there is something groovy and Maker-like out there in the cosmos, but it doesn't prompt me to launch crusades against science classes and public school systems.