[whispering out loud]

I was wondering the same thing, but me thinks what has happened here, is that evo has finally been associated with it's proper political party, and the evo freaks, are sickened by the coalition with the Dems.

[starbase]

evo has finally been associated with it's proper political party, and the evo freaks, are sickened by the coalition with the Dems.

You know, not to speak in riddles or anything, but I've come to think that the creationists would have won this debate sometime back, but for the fact that they are creationists!

My background is in systems design, and that's how I approach this issue. The absence of transition fossils is a deal breaker with evolution. Given that this alone disproves evolution, I don't have any explanation as to why we're here, or who we are. But the creationist's explanation is what keeps the evos in business, given that it's unprovable.

With the Piltdown Man fraud, and perhaps above all, the idiocy of claiming that a monkey could retype Shakespeare if given enough time (i.e. the fraud of systematic, organized change being afforded by infinity), and the fact that anyone who doesn't accept this is attacked, evolution holds all the hallmarks of a pampered orthodoxy, destined ultimately to join the Alchemists and the Ancient Egyptians.

But to embark at all on the creationist's explanation is to breathe new life into the evolution orthodoxy. How long and how far this debate will play out is anyone's guess but at least it will be interesting to watch!

PS Havoc, I pinged you specifically for your opinion as to how far and how long this debate will go on. Hope to hear your view on that. Cheers.