Wrong, John, Once again you are misrepresenting Science as nothing more than a rational version of religion. Evolution is a fact. If it were not a fact, with mountains of evidence to support it (and none to falsify it) it would require belief. Like all the various creation myths humans have invented. Science does not ask you to belief, it presents you with the evidence so that no rational person can come to any other conclusion. The only reason that Evolution unlike other disciplines, like optic get attacked this way is because, the fundamentalist creationists see it as an attack on their territory. Whereas optics does not affect their beliefs. Evolution is FACT, Religion is Belief. What is also BELIEF and a false one at that is what you belief.

I don't believe that any miracle happened. Miracles is what you BELIEVE in. I stick close to the FACTS of SCIENCE. Evolutionary science does not depend on miracles, proving that a miracle occurred would be a way falsifying evolution. Science demands observations, facts, data, numbers, statistics, experimentation; all the things that are not required by those, like you, that rely on BELIEF.

If you see the evidence and do not come conclusion that evolution is the only viable theory, the you don't understand what you are reading/seeing/hearing. Understanding requires something more, an intellectual capacity with and educational background. Not necessarily formally. I imagine I could show you a Hamiltonian eq., and while you could “see it” you would be unable to tell me what it really says. You are having the same problem with evolution. You “see” but you don't understand what you are seeing.

When this happens, I found it occurs for two main reasons. The person just lacks the basic background to understand the evidence at hand. Or this is the more common scenario; they see evolution as running contrary to the core spiritual/religious BELIEFS, and they shut themselves off to the FACTS of Evolution. The first case can be remedied with education, the second is just Willful Ignorance and requires that the person make a shift in their thinking because the more evidence you present, the more they entrench themselves in their illusion.

By your standards, nothing is science. In every field there remains questions, problems to be solved, science does not require full and complete answers to every question before you can deem it to be science. The mathematics of Einstein were science, in some cases it took decades for its predictions to be confirmed, same with DeBrogli, Schroedinger, Pasteur and every other great scientist. Science, like evolution is a process, just because you can't see it happening does not mean it isn't there.

My argument that "Religion depends on emotion, Science demands reason." remains correct. It is true that creationists don't use science but rather pseudo-science to fool people. It is not possible to used science to falsify evolution because all evidence ever gathered has always supported it. The fact that all evidence gathered supports evolution is not circular reason, those are just the facts. The pseudo-science lies in trying to mollify/massage these facts to fit a religious based ideology – usually done by cherry picking, and misinterpretation.

If you think, science argues from authority you do not understand science or have not been exposed to it. Evolutionary science meets all the other criteria of any other science. It is ignorant to think otherwise. The evidence is the authority, and the methods of gathering/analysing/deconstructing/critiquing the evidence is the science.

Science also does not have to be absolutely true to be science, Niels Bohr was doing science, and his model of the atom was a scientific model, it was replaced by others who based on Bohr's work did better science and gave us an even better scientific model of the atom. Your claims of me or the science community rejecting “anything which doesn't match what "Science" has already decreed is true.” is patently false, and foolish.

I've reached many pinnacles in my life – hypocrisy never being one them. That being said, my statement is true, there is no other rational, logical alternative to evolution. It is the only explanation that addresses all (everything) the evidence. All new evidence, findings and experiments all fit Evolution. If the science could only address the current knowledge and have difficulty with new discoveries, it would need reworking. But that is not the case, all new discoveries only strengthen it.

You, again, show your ignorance of science. Science does not claim to absolute answers but to the best possible answers based on all the available evidence. And for ALL the available evidence, Evolution is that answer.

It is true, if you are challenging evolution in favour of creation, you are ignorance of evolutionary science. Just as if you were to claim that the earth is flat you would be ignorance of planetary science, or if you made the case for intelligent falling over gravity. To make this assertion is not an ad hominem attack, it is mere fact. In each case, you would be making a case against all the available evidence.

An assault in evolution, is a bible based assault, it is the main source of their argument and a childish one at that - “it is true because this book says it's true.” That is a perfect circle of illogic, and the only tool that creationists have.

There is no evidence, that you, or anybody else has gathered that does not conform to evolution - if you claim otherwise, they are false. If any creationist “evidence” has been rejected is has been rejected on the METHODOLOGY, not because it did not conform to evolution. This is the typical excuse used by creationist, who do pseudo-science in the name of creationism and then pout when real scientist dismiss the sham attempts. “Conspiracy!” they cry, in an attempt to gain sympathy for their fraudulent works.

My final paragraph, is historically accurate; "No creationist has ever used science against evolution.", this is not an attack, just basic historical and scientific facts. I say this with eyes scanning for all evidence and ears fully open. It is you, who turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear to the evidence and cold hard facts in favour a comforting fiction – it shows a need for emotional and intellectual growth. I recognize pseudo-science by its poor methodology, it's illogical arguments, it's use of supernatural intervention. I feel sorry that you have been fooled by these hucksters – it is true what they say, Science education is in a state of crisis and has been for a long time, you John are a perfect example of the failures of science education.

Knowledge, reason. Science.

Ignorance, belief. Mythology.

I feel sorry for you and others that have chosen the latter.

You are always welcome on our side, should you ever achieve intellectual maturity.