bzrd here: Can evolution be falsified? When Darwin postulated his theory he was aware that the fossil record of the time did not support it. However, he was confident, that in time it would. Well, over a hundred yrs later, "punctuated equilibria" was introduced to account for the lack of transformational forms in the fossil record [try falsifing punctuated equilibria]. In his book "Not by Chance" Dr. Lee Spetner, Ph.D. in information theory, systematically dis-assembles the notion of information increasing over time in the genome; it was as if he lifted the hood on the "Darwinian automobile" and found the engine missing. Micheal J. Behe, molecular biologist at Lehigh, coined the term "irriducibly complex" to describe the many bio-molecular sytems in nature that are not amenable to gradualistic development via evolution. One is left with the question of "what would it take?" for evolution to be falsified. I have absolutely no problem with inference as a tool in science. I do have a problem with evolution being presented as a dogma. It seems anyone who states otherwise, is labeled a heretic and subject to inquisition of secular science. You would disagree, that one could make a valid argument for intelligent design in nature, based on inference? *****

Evolution can be falsified (weakness/strength is gauged on accuracy of predictions remember?), but there is lots of evidence supporting it. Creationism however, to my knowledge doesn't make specific predictions, and rest only on trying to debunk evolution (do you know any predictions I might have missed?). Furthermore, there is not lack of evidence in the fossil record. In fact, this is one of the ways we've observed evolution indirectly. If some of the fossil records are missing, it's more likely due to the fact that many of the specimens died in areas not suitable for fossilization to occur, you can't expect for there to be 100% fossilization for all creatures that died can you? (I think this may be what you mean by "punctuated equilibria"). Furthermore, you haven't offered any more arguments. You simply appeal to more authority (biologists). Unfortunately, I'm a student which takes up alot of my time. I'd be much grateful if you were to give me a summary of these works though. Why would you cite inference as a weakness in evolution (ie. we haven't directly observed macroevolution), but use it as an argument for creationism? That seems rather inconsistent to me.

As far as I know, many scientists are theists, and have no problem reconciling evolution with the existence of God. Creationism however, based on Christianity, is a dogma in my opinion. And what inferences bring you to the conclusion that evolution doesn't occur?

Nice talkin' to ya. Bye Bzrd.