Perhaps you can't say and I would tend to agree with you on that, but many others seem to think they can.  My question is why assume one way when the data so comprehensively suggests the other way.

I seriously doubt Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin were operating under explicit commands of God.

Charles, I am not trying to make this into a Christianity vs. evolution.  What I am pointing out to you is the fallacy in logic that you are bringing to the discussion concerning evolution.

I have never ever championed Darwinism.  I have never ever even said that I believe in evolution.  You have simply jumped to that conclusion.  The only thing that I have done in regards to evolution is to try to show the fallacy of so much of the argument given to discredit it.  I have also actively tried to show the fallacies of the other side as well.  The so-called Christian approach to discrediting evolution is absolutely terrible, scientifically, philosophically and theologically.  It is a shame on the community.  I would hate to think how many technically astute people have been put off of God and His message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the idiocy of much of the argument against evolution.

The irony here is that how and what you have assumed in reading my posts is right up there with how and what you have assumed in reading anything about evolution.

Why should it be unknowable.  Perhaps it is, but why do you assume that?  Why do you think that He could not or did not do what He did in a discoverable and understandible way?

I agree that the debate should be on whether there is a Creator or not.  But the approach taken by the so-called conservative Christian view is almost completely counter to the objective of proving or even suggesting there is a Creator.  The arguments are counter productive.  They make no sense whatever to the nonbeliever.  Where is the reasoning in that approach? Such an approach only confirms his nonbelief.

I have pointed out before that, for the nonbeliever, if what you have to say about the physical realm that we can see, evaluate and measure is so obviously wrong, how can you be expected to be right about the spiritual realm that we can't see, evaluate or measure?

I don't know if he created in 6 literal days some 6000 years ago. If he did, It would contradict science, and that's OK for me a Christian. It probably isn't OK for the non-Christian scientist.

Heck the resurrection of Christ defies all known science, so someone bent on pure scientific proof could not be a Christian.

The difference is that we have physical evidence to measure against with regard to the age of the earth.  We can't say the same about the death and resurrection of Christ.

The polar ice caps alone defy any idea of a 'young' earth.

If you believe the global flood story in the Bible, the polar ice caps should show no more than 4400 years of precipitation [and that is only if ice started to form immediately after the flood].   Ice core samples show a history of precipitation well beyond 10K years nevermind 4-5K.