[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.

[js1138]

As I said. I’d be more impressed if such blessings were universally distributed rather than tossed at random. I’ll thank God for my good fortune just as soon as I see it made universal.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

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

I'm sorry that you think I'm twisting your words--that's not my intention. I do like the picture of my crushing a Cheap Strawman with my Ideological Spin, though. It sounds like something from a martial arts movie--"your Cheap Strawman cannot stand against my Ideological Spin of Doom!"

Except for those practitioners who believed Bloodletting to be the 'current science of the day'...

My point has been that your statement makes no sense because bloodletting was not science. There was no "current science of the day" when it came to medicine, just as sacrificing virgins was not the "current science" when it came to volcanoes, and reading entrails was not the current science when it came to weather forecasting, and stories about gods in chariots was not the current science when it came to astronomy. The fact that the people who thought those things were grappling with questions that today we use science to address, does not make them scientists.

Besides, even if they were, so what? The current science of today also includes atomic power and electronics. Are they also wrong because people used to believe in bloodletting? The fact that scientists were wrong before doesn't prove anything about whether they're wrong now.