Truly. To even speak of a 'missing link' is a bit silly really....To even call this a 'missing link' I feel is a poor term. It should simply be viewed as just more ... evidence

I just saw advertised on the History Channel tonight is a show called "The Link" and it will be all about IDA if anyone is interested just tossing it out there.

No matter which side you choose to believe it would be foolish to not, at least, consider both as possible. Science is not 100% fool proof and based mostly on speculation as creationism is based on a book written by a guy named "Dave". Why does everything always have to be one or the other ,why not both.

You make an excellent point. In my mind evolution is pretty much irrefutable. They just keep layering evidence atop more evidence. Its like dropping a pencil and acknowledging gravity at this point. However that does mean that some sort of creator force did not initiate life on this planet and use biological evolution as a mechanism to bring about that result. I see absolutely no conflict there but I guess thats just me. Hopefully its not just me though.

yadda yadda
evolution isn't science
it's all unprovable!!!!!
btw i love science also that'sjust not part of it
have a great day

Hello Deke,

I don't think you have a solid idea as to how science is supposed to work. I think a lot of people mistakenly take the position that evolution does not occur because science has not provided the evidence. This is not what science is supposed to do. One of the major tenants of science is skepticism. Scientists will make observations (e.g. Darwin's observations leading up to "his" theory) and then form an explanation of these observations (i.e. facts), which is theory. It is the scientist's job to disprove theories by making hypotheses and then testing these hypotheses in controlled conditions. The fact that evolution has stood the test of time (i.e. it has not been able to be disproved for over 150 years) is why it has such high standing today.

It is not the job of the scientist to prove something. Rather, it is his or her job to disprove a theory. That is how science works and this is why "facts" are seen differently in the scientfic world than in everday use. "Facts," generally speaking, within the scientific community are unremarkable.

My child goes to a Christian school. This year the science teacher told them that there was no such thing as evolution. They skipped that chapter in the science book. He said that it's the way that the devil works. He wanted them to not believe in evolution so God would know that they are Christians.

If I had kids, I don't think I could handle them being in a school like that. It really is an assault on reason. What did you do in response?

If I had kids, I don't think I could handle them being in a school like that. It really is an assault on reason. What did you do in response?

My child goes to a Christian school. This year the science teacher told them that there was no such thing as evolution. They skipped that chapter in the science book. He said that it's the way that the devil works. He wanted them to not believe in evolution so God would know that they are Christians.

Yea I would have been thrilled to have my kid tell me they skipped over that section, someone would have lost a job.

This has been done over and over again, and if administrators and teachers think they can dispense with science based on religious views then we have some open positions that need to be filled.

It is crazy really. I have been trying to wrap my head around religion v science debate lately. I recall a book I had to read in undergrad for a history of science: "When Science and Christianity Meet." The central thesis of the book was that, despite claims to the contrary, science and religion are not inevitably opposed to each other. Rather, we must look at each incident in which science and religion clash and examine the nuances of these incidents. From this examination, it should become apparent that the ostensible clash between science and religion results from personality and egos rather than the claim that science and religion cannot be roconciled.

I am starting to rethink the position of that book as these types of incidents are becoming more common. But now I fear that I am just rambling.

By the way, thanks for the warm welcome!

Humans just don't like to not know. I guess it comes down to whether you need an answer now to get you through life or you are the type that will always be searching. To each their own. We all have to make sense of this world in our own way. We should not pile our views on anyone else but keep an open mind. Ain't that why we love where we live.

I agree. I find many times my answer to something is I don't know, its ok to be uncertain. I feel too often religion has issues with uncertainty.

Its rare that a field of science has as much evidence to support the field.

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, and has more evidence to support it then does our current theory of gravity.