[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . as science is limited to observations of the inside from the inside.

If there is any sidestepping here it is on the part of those who fail to acknowlege to subjective nature of the observer, and the emotional attachment one may have to his perceptions. Evolutionists are champions at hiding their biases while pounding their chests as if they alone hold the key to objective interpretation of the evidence. At least creationists honestly admit they subject themselves to a text they themselves did not spin out of whole cloth. Evolutionists have no guide other than their own opinions and what appears to be consensus among like-minded ideologues. In short, a science that depends upon human observers is no more sound than a science that proceeds on the basis of outside revelation.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If there is any sidestepping here it is on the part of those who fail to acknowlege to subjective nature of the observer, and the emotional attachment one may have to his perceptions."

That's why science relies on the independent verification of many observers, not just one.

"Evolutionists are champions at hiding their biases while pounding their chests as if they alone hold the key to objective interpretation of the evidence."

So you claim.

"At least creationists honestly admit they subject themselves to a text they themselves did not spin out of whole cloth."

So you claim.

"Evolutionists have no guide other than their own opinions and what appears to be consensus among like-minded ideologues."

No, there's objective reality. There's evidence crosschecked by many individuals, some who are deeply opposed to each other's theories.

"In short, a science that depends upon human observers is no more sound than a science that proceeds on the basis of outside revelation."

You are arguing for a purely postmodernist, completely relativistic model for the acquisition of knowledge. According to what you just said, all knowledge claims have equal truth values. This is obviously false.

[King Prout]

Your premise is false, and you know it.

Scientists are not the ones who cling to pet explanations against all contradictory evidence. All scientists have been taught that all science is provisional. If they stray from that dictum, they done screwn up. Most scientists will fight very hard against an upstart model in support of a comfortable model which has been shown to function well. However, those same scientists will accept such a new model once it has been shown under extensive trial to function better than the one they defended.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

As we all tend to view new information in terms of our persuasion, and how it relates to it. It would be interesting to see what new hypothesis might arise if there was no theory of evolution. Perhaps this fossil would lead to that very theory, or not?
Just a thought.