>>The margin of error does not counter the theory which explains, for all intents and purposes, the observable record<
>
>My understanding is the theory of evolution does not have a strong observable record to support it. It is just a theory. This contrast sharply with the Einstein’s theory of General Relativity which has passed numerous observational tests.

Thats not my understanding.

I find that people who do not (want to) believe in evolution nitpick at specific aspects. I think this is (a) pointless and (b) irrelevant unless one is truly a studied expert in the field.

Rather one should look at the general, overall picture of what evolution is explaining and see whether, by and large, it correlates with what we observe with our own eyes. Does the theory of evolution, in general, appear to describe the world as we see it? The answer is yes.

Instead creationists want to say that what we see and measure is rubbish, a test of our faith from God. Instead of using a logical process lets rather assume an omipotent power created everything in seven days. On the one hand you have a theory which appears to explain what we observe. On the other we have only a belief.

I agree with MikeH in why can evolution not be God's way of creating the universe and life? This would be a far more logical, and elegant, approach to take imho.