That's too bad because while I have problems with evolution per se...I am not generally anti-science. The scientific method when applied to the personal self can be breath taking efficient in helping one cut thru ones own personal garbage...though I think of the scientific method applied in this regard as more like the socratic method of self inquiry. Logic and experience made lead one to a climactic personal decision...but they still only go so far...a mature personal morality is one that finds its clarity in the truth and its humility in the wisdom of finally understanding that one knows that one knows nothing of what he really ought! There is still that leap to be made!
You follow the caterpillar and you always come to the crysalis!
I love this statement. I love it because of what the subsequent conversation tends to reveal. Poster after poster has made exactly such a statement on these threads, only to eventually reveal that there would be nothing left of science as we know it today if all the parts rejected by said poster were discredited.
The typical FR creationist who happily says he only rejects evolution in fact rejects geology (supports Old Earth and contains the fossil record), paleontology (full of people saying transitional forms exist when the talking points clearly say they don't), astronomy (supports an Old Universe), the Big Bang (Old Universe Cosmology) and nuclear chemistry (supports an Old Earth via radiometric dating). It turns out all of those things are covered by the term "evolution" in Creo-Speak. That's why you can find a web page with a title like "50 Questions for Evolutionists" and read ten questions before there's anything remotely connected to biology. (Example: "Where did all the matter in the universe come from?")
Take those subjects out of science and you're back to Phlogiston Theory.