For evolutionists:

format_quote Originally Posted by MuslimCONVERT

The question is, how can one dare call evolution a science if the above is excerpt is true. we have by this own man's edmission, not a science we are dealing with, but a mystery. (His words, not mine).

Evolution by natural selection isn't 'a science', it is a scientific theory, and you need to understand what that is. A theory is an explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. It is not a 'proof', and the only requirement for its general acceptance is that it better explains the observable facts than any alternative scientific theory. ALL theories are the same in that respect, they are all subject to refinement or even replacement when something better comes along. We have many theories concerning particle physics and cosmology, for example, that have far less direct evidence in their favour than evolution, yet they are still perfectly good theories. Those fields are full of mystery, too!

Evolution remains the currently accepted scientific theory as there is nothing better, or anything even close. 'Scientific' intelligent design, an idea based on irreduceably complex biological systems was effectively shot down (something many non-scientists still clinging to it choose to ignore). Other concepts of design, let alone all-out creationism, have no 'evidence' in scientific terms at all.

Should we not rather call, from a scientific standpoint at least, the study of evolution, the mystery of human origins?

No. In scientific terms that would just be throwing in the towel and giving up; you do that and it's no longer science. There are far 'weaker' theories across all of science that are accepted quite happily (in the terms I have described). Also, of course, evolution is a far broader topic than that concerning human origins.

Why are creationists scoffed at so often, when top evolutionists are admitting there are 'many gaps' in their own theory?

Firstly you need to distinguish between gaps in the theory and gaps in the evidence ideally required to support it. Just because something hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it mean the theory is 'wrong'. Again, we have an awful lot of scientific theories with less to support them, but they are still around as firstly nothing has been found which disproves them and secondly there is nothing better. In all cases, including evolution by natural selection, the chance that something better (i.e that better fits and predicts the observable facts) may come along is always there. At present, ID and/or creationism have absolutely nothing to offer in that regard.

They are 'scoffed' at only in scientific terms. Both ID and creationism are perfectly valid philosophical and theological points of view. In terms of the scientific method, though, the ideas are 'scoffed' at simply because, in scientific terms they have nothing to support them and, at least if/until they have, the idea of considering them in scientific terms is absurd. They are faith positions, not scientific ones.