>That's not entirely accurate, or at least, its not the same
>argument. We can say that for the history of our nation to be
>accurate necessitates that George Washington is the founding
>father of our country. However, the fact that life exists on
>Earth does not necessitate that evolution is the only
>mechanism for it. Nor does the fact that there are observable
>qualities to the theory of evolution necessitate that it is
>mutually exclusive from any outside influence or additional
>mechanics.
>
>The "phenomena of George Washington being the first president
>of the United States" is something that is in its entirety
>observable, whereas "the creation of man" is not.

Not at all, it is impossible to observe that George Washington was the first president of the united states. All we have is historical evidence that we draw conclusions from. Also the current state of the United States does not require the former existance of an George Washington, there are tons of other ways history could have happened. Illuminati could have faked most of the history and the papers and have infact ruled the US since the beginning or a divine hand could have created the US.

Sure this sounds absurd to you because the in your opinion abundance of evidence that points to that Mr. Washington was infact a founding father and president. This is exactly how experts probably feel about the theory of evolution, the evidence are abundant and well tested. But the difference between the founding father and evolution is that evolution is somewhat complicated and goes against "faith". So this means that lots of non scientists have opinions and spread doubt and propaganda and the result is that people think that the evidence for evolution is paper thin and just another belief.

Also the origin of life is not the same as evolution.