[narby]

Anyone who understands science knows that it is not the number of scientiests that subscribe to a given theory that makes it valid, it’s the ability of a given theory to predict. On that count, from the fossil record, to genetics, to irriducibly complex biological systems, Darwinism is being discredited left and right.

Boy, there's some genuine Clintonian spin there GGG.

In order to be "increasingly discredited" by science, as your post asserted, then by definition there must be a movement of the consensus of scientists away from an old understanding and toward a new one. That 1% figure of "scientists" (to be generous in that description) demonstrates that there is no "increasing discrediting" of evolution. It's just your particular disingenuous sales pitch in your agenda of destroying the science of evolution.

By the way, the "irreducible complexity" argument of ID has itself been totally discredited by science. It's a nice term that I'm sure often fools the uneducated on this issue.

[GodGunsGuts]

==In order to be “increasingly discredited” by science, as your post asserted, then by definition there must be a movement of the consensus of scientists away from an old understanding and toward a new one.

Sorry Narby, Galileo discredited geocentrism long before there was a consensus on the subject.