"Who are trying to kid?"
Ha! If evolution was scientifically provable as being in doubt, there would be 10 papers published everyday attacking it. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel tomorrow, and secure their place in history alongside einstein and edison.
Look how long it took scientists to pounce on Pons and Fleischman!
Either way, you as much as agreed with me that the scientific community 100% agrees that evoltion is correct and ID is religion.
BTW, you seem to have a severe misconception on the definition of the word 'theory' in science... You focus on it as if the fact that evolution is a 'theory' somehow mitigates its authenticity. That is a very stupid assumption and dislpays a lack of even basic scientific understanding. The word 'theory' in science is not the same as 'theory' in common conversation. A 'theory' in science is on par with a 'law,' but in a larger scope. Evolution is as much fact as gravity and relativity. Strangely you have no problem with those 'theories.'
I suspect you've been told this before, yet you persist with the misconception because it appears more convincing to the other scientific illiterates who may be reading.
See, if 100% of the scientific community believes that evolution is correct, then how many scientists would disagree that evolution is correct? Zero. If even one member disagrees with evolution then your statment no longer holds. Since a simple googe search of the name Michael Behe proves that at least one member disagrees, your statement is false.
If this absurd comment was based on either a misunderstanding of english or willful ignorance you should now have the intellecutal tools necessary to avoid the same mistake in the future. If it was in fact a lie told because it appears more convincing to the scientific illiterates who may be reading, well, then I think you owe Asfar an apology.
It's funny you mention gravity and relativity. Reminds me of an article I read once...
Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like [evolution] should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at nonrelativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.
Sounds rational to me...
Ha! If evolution was scientifically provable as being in doubt, there would be 10 papers published everyday attacking it. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel tomorrow, and secure their place in history alongside einstein and edison.
And you honestly believe this? Aside from the laughable assertion that one must first disprove something that was never proved in the first place, my guess is that it would only be natural that those who have a vested stake in maintaining the theory would fight absolutely tooth and nail to make sure that any and all contrarian points of view are summarily squelched as quickly and completely as possible. All one has to do is look at the 'talking past each other posts' here to see that that is the case.