[Fichori]

I am thoroughly convinced you selectively read my post.

I will put it very simply:
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.
They are both built on a foundation of Religious belief in unproven or unprovable ideas.


So now the only remaining question is, at the time of practice, was Bloodletting vehemently defended in the same fashion that Evolution is now.(rhetorical question)
(I think not; Evolution is much more Religious in nature.)

[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.