Its your right not to agree. Its also quite possible you're wrong. You claim scientists are very often wrong, and many of them have probably looked at this particular question in some detail. If you don't agree with them, do you have an alternative?
I'm guessing that you're not a scientist. I'll ask you a question that I asked an earlier poster (who never responded): What is your field of study?I have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in EE and Design Software.
Fair enough. Neither of us is a biologist or a palentologist, so we understand that we're both speaking as outside observers.
I just do not buy random mutation as a mechanism for biological change, mainly due to the increasing complexity and large changes required to get us from a single cell to here. It seems preposterous on its face from a common sense point of view.
Of course it seems preposterous. Why else would it not have been thought of for 2,400 years after Aristotle got serious about studying biology? Aristotle might've said the same thing you're saying, don't you think?
And since science (or scientists) do not equal reality or truth, I think although it may be great science, it does not represent reality in this case.
I agree that "science (or scientists) do not equal reality or truth", but I don't know what it means to say that "although it may be great science, it does not represent reality in this case." The fact is, it's not great science if it doesn't represent reality. Period.