From time to time, a creationist will present me with a bit of evidence that doesn’t fit with previous findings in regard to evolution. In their mind this debunks the entire field of study. I disagree. For the sake of argument, lets say the new finding that suddenly interests the creationist is valid. What does this mean?Think about a crime scene. Behind the police tape you find a bullet hole in the wall and shells on the ground. There’s a smear of blood and a strain of hair, both of which DNA evidence proved invaluable in identifying our suspect. There are footprints of dried mud leading to and from the victim, who’s remains show signs of a struggle. The detective dusts for finger prints and none are found outside those of the victim and our suspect.A witness watched a man matching the description of the suspect entering the crime scene at 7 pm and leaving at 7:30 pm. The witness was aware of these specific times because the window in which he noticed the suspect is directly next to his TV which began and ended the nightly news during the same time frame.Open-and-shut case, right? This forensic dream is like the body of evidence for evolution. I’m tempted to include a confession from our metaphorical suspect. The only thing missing is the smoking gun, which would be equivalent to scientists witnessing macroevolution in progress. (or if you are a theist who thinks abiogenesis is a part of evolution, I guess life-from-nonlife could be the smoking gun.)Let's go back to the hypothetical new finding my creationist friend pimped. In the grand scheme of evidence it would be as if the nightly news started at 7:05pm that night, moving the suspect’s arrival time back slightly. If the theist was a juror trying our suspect, do you think he would throw out the entire case because the defense could prove a minor time discrepancy? No, he saves the baby throwing for when the bath water contradicts his world view.Sorry, I have a metaphor mixing problem. I’m in a 12-step program.If a new finding surfaces that brings into question an aspect of our current model, we adjust it. That’s science. The religious have a hard time grasping this because the foundation for their beliefs are based on ancient texts rather than a progression towards the truth. To reject evolution, one must commit to the belief of a conspiracy in which all of academia are in the pocket of an anti-theist shadow pact with the capabilities to counterfeit evidence beyond our current technology. So either get with the program or explain yourself