I read this thread with interest and told myself not to get involved this time. So much for following my own advise, LOL.
I largely agree with NASA. The basic existence of God does not have anything, one way or another, to do with the Theory of Evolution of Species. God, IMHO, could have designed evolution as a mechanism for His creation, He is after all God, and can do what He wants, how He wants. Many scientists, especially quantum physicists, believe that the universe must have been created (by God). They are made up of many religions (and none).
It is called the "theory" instead of the "law" of evolution because it cannot be proven and verified by repeatable experimentation (by it's very nature).
The term "theory", within the scientific method, is much more stringently applied than in general usage. For it to rise to the level of "theory" (instead of hypothesis), it must fit observable facts (among other criteria). As those facts are gathered, a (scientific) theory is either modified to fit the new facts, or is discarded. The "Theory of Evolution" fits these criteria within the scientific method. The "theory" of Creationism, does not. Within the scientific method, Creationism would, at best, be called an "hypothesis".
Don't confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with general usage. Einstein's Theory of Relativity will always be a "theory" and not a "law" because it is not provable within the stringent rules laid out in the scientific method. There is no doubt, however, that it is valid.
The basic "Theory of Evolution" (TE) postulates that genetic changes (mutations) are selected by nature because they are more adaptive to circumstances and so are more successful. If the changes are radical enough that the new offspring cannot breed viably with the old (but can with each other), then they are a different species, by definition.
We know that mutations happen all the time and observe them regularly, we usually refer to them as birth defects. We also know that these mutations are almost never heritable and in fact that radical (enough) mutation will almost always be accompanied by either sterility or death. It's in the "almost" that the TE resides.
Statistically, we would have to be able to observe hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of generations of a species in order to "prove" the TE and change the designation to "law". The practical impossibility of the the time frames involved, means the TE will always be "theory" and not "law".
HOWEVER, because of the accelerated time frame of the "birth" of generations, we have been able to observe exactly that mechanism with viruses, and have watched them change into something completely different. This is not considered "proof" by the scientific community, only because viruses do not technically adhere to the "definition of species". It must be considered as very strong evidence though, that the exact mechanism, postulated in TE long before we knew of DNA, has now been observed in nature.
I have read the "evidence" of the (mostly Christian) creationists, but it is usually nothing more than an attempt to debunk TE, not a presentation of testable evidence.
It usually starts with an accounting of the flaws inherent in carbon 14 dating. All measurements are inaccurate to one degree or another. The inaccuracies in carbon 14 dating are understood and accounted for by any competent lab doing the testing, and have been often verified by other methods. When several different methods of measurement correlate, scientists generally accept that it must be true, within a margin of error.
The biblical flood and planet-wide cloud cover, is often cited as the reason for the inherent inaccuracy of carbon 14 dating in particular. This ignores the fact that there is no geological evidence of a planet-wide inundation 3500yrs (or ever) ago.
It is also fact (and is ignored) that a planet-wide cloud cover would have changed the albedo (reflectivity) of the earth in such a way that pre-flood biblical times would have existed in an ice age. We know this is true because, besides geological evidence (NASA's meteor strike), we have well documented records of what happens to the climate when the albedo changes to an even lesser degree. Look up what happened to the climate in Europe when Krakatoa blew, thousands of miles away, in 1883.
I could go on. Why do we find actual bones of prehistorical (recent) animals, mammoths, aurochs, saber-tooth tigers, crocodiles, etc., but all the "bones" we find of dinosaurs are actually reverse images of bone, made of stone? Could it be because it takes millions of years for the minerals that leach into the interstitial spaces in bones, to turn to stone?
All religions claim that their "book" is the "truth" (I read the KJB). No religion claims it has in it's possession, any document actually written by God. Even the teachings of Jesus, relatively recent history, are accounts of what he said, written by others.
I believe that all religion's books are an attempt to know God, inspired, sometimes, by God, in a way that the writer understood, but still written by a flawed human being. They may be inaccurate in particular detail, and still be "Truth" in overall context.
I found it instructive that the Dali Llama, when asked about conversion to his brand of Buddhism, said that people should find enlightenment in the religion they were raised with, and not be looking to others.
Just my $1.02 worth.
