[Superman]

dd, I thought I'd get away with pointing the finger of shame at those folks whose views are at the polar ends of this debate, and only to the degree that their views leave no room for the possibility that the other side might have relevant input. Not so, I guess.

And I still am curious about what message I am supposed to get from the Darwin Fish. I expect folks to express their religious beliefs. "Religious fervor" I think they call it. What I find more surprizing is "science fervor." What's up with that, except intellectual boasting?

And again, dd....I'm respectfully suggesting you consider taking a Logic class. We've had good chats and I have a high degree of respect for you. My suggestion is not a backhanded insult. In a Logic class you would learn the difference between deduction and induction. For example, if all horses have hair, and Trigger has no hair, then clearly Trigger is not a horse. To the degree that the premises are to be adopted as true, this is deductive reasoning.

But if any and all aspects of this argument can be assailed, then there are several reasons why we cannot deductively conclude that Trigger is not a horse. Trigger may have been shaved. There may be horses we have never discovered which are hairless.

With evolution, we have a rather thin smattering of evidence, and a theory that seems to be consistent with most or all of that evidence. That is hundreds of miles from a deductive conclusion.