Thanks for a thoughtful response JGC!

You are correct that on the surface evolutionary theory deals with the observations of genetic changes within already existing life on this planet and beyond. But you have to admit that both the 'routine argument' for evolution and Darwin's theories have their founding in a cosmology based upon the idea that 'first there was nothing, then something (along the lines of bacterial life), then everything evolved from there.' I realize that I'm simplifying things quite a lot, but doing so because I was leaving a response to make others think further than the original article allowed.

Creationism actually doesn't deny the laws of physics, it offers an explanation outside of natural law. The God of creationism is 'supernatural' and therefore natural laws that would clearly apply to evolutionary theory, a Creator would stand 'outside of.' It at the least offers a better possibility than the 'something from nothing' theories that much of the scientific realm brings forth. But it does require a willingness to believe that man and nature aren't the 'center of the universe'.

Most evolutionary theory that is taught both in our schools and at any Natural History Museum not only teaches that man evolved from a common ancestor, the ape, but demands that we all accept that as the only viable option. My use of the term 'monkey' was simply using a common thread of conversation regarding evolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale, such as the development of a new species. Your example of a new 'species' of mouse would only apply if that new 'species' was unable to interbreed with any other breed of mouse. Most often what you're referring to is actually a new breed, not a new species. Typically a species is an entirely different variety of life, with possible similarities to another species, but genetically unable to interbreed with other species, such as humans and apes.

Anyway, appreciate the repartee and thought provoking conversation.