Actually, this isn't the whole story either. Hydrogen-to-man is what they teach, and no less a scientific mind than that of Sir Fred Hoyle understands this. One can go further and include the very, very beginning: Nothing-to-man is the full story, or Cosmic Egg - to -man if you prefer a bang with something to originate from (but no reason to originate).

Since we have little consensus on bangs, and they all "result" in a uniform blanket of hydrogen (and a trivial amount of helium, technically) making up all the matter in the universe, it would be most accurate to say Hydrogen-to-man is the requirement. That's what is universally taught; that's what any self-aware entity seriously considering the matter will require to see evidence for before believing.

And that's what's strictly required by the religiously intolerant. That's why an astronomer can be seen as a very serious threat to evolutionism if he doesn't keep his mouth shut about certain discoveries and their implications.

Now if any evolutionist would care to agree that hydrogen doesn't up & form stars, galaxies, and clusters on its own... well, it might be nice to start a thread about something we agree upon. I would be interested to see at what point in the story our disagreements commence. If I have been mistaken in my belief that we disagree from the very start, it'd be nice to find out.

Of course one hopes evolutionists can understand the view of others. Effectively saying "We accept these beliefs and require others to accept them, but they're not a part of our teaching because we're not confident they can be defended," just isn't very convincing. How many of you would be receptive to people teaching Christianity in this manner? (Note: I do not ask how many would approve - we already have sufficient information to confidently estimate a high percentage.)