So much of what people call "science" is just fiction. Your hypothesis doesn't explain anything that needs explaining as far as I can tell, unless you're explaining a plot for a star trek episode.
I'm not trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. What you say sounds fun to talk about but it's just not necessary in any scientific inquiry.
But to your question - no, in reality, if no evidence supports the theory of evolution, then there is no reason to claim the creator used it. The mechanisms do not exist.
It's like even though you are capable of forming complete sentences, you simply created a pencil and let the wind take care of the rest. No point in it. Especially if you already wrote a whole book demonstrating your vast abilities.
So much of what people call "science" is just fiction. Your hypothesis doesn't explain anything that needs explaining as far as I can tell, unless you're explaining a plot for a star trek episode.
I'm not trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. What you say sounds fun to talk about but it's just not necessary in any scientific inquiry.
But to your question - no, in reality, if no evidence supports the theory of evolution, then there is no reason to claim the creator used it. The mechanisms do not exist.
It's like even though you are capable of forming complete sentences, you simply created a pencil and let the wind take care of the rest. No point in it. Especially if you already wrote a whole book demonstrating your vast abilities.