Bottom line, science has its place. Courts have their case.
I used to use this analogy 40 years ago
Thousands of years from now, archaeologists dig up the remains of a lost civilization in the Seattle area. They find my home, the Seattle bus schedule, and my employment records. They discover that I went to work every day at a certain time and came home at a certain time.
After putting the pieces together, they are very excited to proclaim that I was a COBOL porgrammer in Seattle and took the bus every day from my home in Newcastle.
Except I drove. And if they had continued digging and discovering information, they would have figured that out. And they would have found out that I owned a Subaru DL and would have said, We were wrong. He didn't take the bus. He drove a Subaru DL.
Except I drove an Opel GT. And it's possible that if they kept digging they would have found out that information too.
That's the point here. Are we at the "he took the bus" phase, or the Subaru phase, or the Opel GT phase? Or something else entirely.
Difficult to say at what "phase" we are at, but note that at each successive phase, the information about you became more accurate. At what "phase" would the theory of evolution have to be in order for it to be so off that creationism was a more accurate representation of reality?
This is a very simple scenario. Much simpler than even the simplest single cell life form, and it is possible to make all sorts of hypotheses that make sense and have "evidence" to prove that they are possible. But the only way to know you are correct is to hop into your DeLorean and see for yourself.
Not entirely, even by your own example. So, let's say all traces of you owning a car were destroyed over time, so that the future people studying your life would never know about it, and would inevitably conclude (incorrectly) that you took the bus to work. That doesn't make the rest of what they found about your life incorrect, now does it?
So, let's extend this to evolution, shall we? Now, sure, there are a lot of organisms which never fossilized, but there are plenty more that are. So, while some organisms have barely any fossil ancestors to speak of, there are others that, by virtue of luck and living in an area in which fossils formed relatively easily, have tons. Our species is an example of that, you could make a flip book out of our ancestors. A similar thing applies to horses and whales. Are we to assume that only these organisms evolved and no other, just because not every modern organism has an extremely complete ancestor fossil record to go with it?
This gets to the core of my issues with "science" regarding the Evolution stuff. It's fine to say, 'we believe he may have taken the bus and evidence shows that is possible. It is stupid to say, "our extensive experimentation on all information we have from that time prove he took the bus.
No duh, and you'll notice that most behavior related stuff for extinct fossil organisms is rather speculative (aside from what they ate, which is sometimes fossilized into their stomachs and can be partially inferred by teeth). But you know what wouldn't be speculative? Your gender, since humans have different bone structures between them. Nor would it be pure speculation about where your muscles attached, because bones have protrusions and other structures where muscles attach to them as a result of the strain.
They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause. - Peter Gabriel from the album The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway
-_- dude, I couldn't even tell you the name of the most recently discovered fossil considered relevant to human evolution. People always try to claim that evolution is a bunch of propaganda, but you actually have to do research to learn anything about it. I don't casually pass by people handing out evolution pamphlets or people speaking in the streets about it. I see plenty of it for religions, though.
