[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

As long as you don't consider those who, practiced Bloodletting and believed it to be scientific medicine; Bloodletting was not scientific medicine. Bloodletting was, at the time, no less scientific than Evolution is now.

Like I said before, insisting doesn't make it so. Bloodletting was not scientific medicine in today's sense of "scientific," which is the only one that matters when evaluating it vis à vis evolution. The theory of evolution meets today's standards for science; the theory behind bloodletting doesn't.

[Fichori]

"Like I said before, insisting doesn't make it so. Bloodletting was not scientific medicine in today's sense of "scientific," which is the only one that matters when evaluating it vis à vis evolution....."

NEVER did I claim that Bloodletting was scientific medicine in today's sense of "scientific".

"... The theory of evolution meets today's standards for science; the theory behind bloodletting doesn't."

I was simply comparing the fallowing:
Bloodletting and the 'current science' of its day.
AND
Evolution and the 'current science' of today.

You have twisted my original statement into a Cheap Strawman that your Ideological Spin can crush easily.

From my post:
"As long as you don't consider those who, practiced Bloodletting and believed it to be scientific medicine; Bloodletting was not scientific medicine."

My apologies for writing in COMMON English.
I will now translate into SIMPLE English.

"In the day of use, Except for those practitioners who believed Bloodletting to be the 'current science of the day', Bloodletting was not considered by its practitioners to be the 'current science of the day'."

I also said that, many current Scientists believe that Evolution is the 'current scientific' explanation of where they came form.

In hindsight, Bloodletting was proved to be somewhat ridiculous.
Evolution, when viewed in hindsight, will be proved to have been absolutely ridiculous.