Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
I ask you, empirically speaking, what is so compelling about evolution that would make me anti-science for not accepting its claims?
There is a difference between being anti-science and science illiterate.

When it comes to evolution, most in the scientific community accept evolution as fact. It is the theories of evolution that are disputable, not the idea of evolution. You comment on what you see as flaws in Darwins Theory of N.S. as proof against evolution. That is akin to saying you don't think the moon exists because you found out it doesn't consist of cheese. The moon still exists.

Biological evolution is seen as a fact because of the simple equation of "genotype + environment = phenotype". This is learned in day 1 of and anthropology class. You don't even need to go back to the millions of years old fossil record of australopithicines and their similarities to modern man but you can look across the globe at modern man and see the effects of evolution.

Why do equatorial Africans have black skin, coarse hair and flared nostrils? Why are Andeans and Tibetans short, stout, brown skin and increased lung capacities? Why are Northern Europeans tall, fair skinned, blonde hair and blue eyes? Genotype + environment = Phenotype.

The environment has shaped these traits and while we might not know exactly how that is done, it is clear that the environment is responsible. Darwin thought that particular genetic errors or mutations proved to be more advantageous in specific environments and subsequently those traits were more likely to be passed. Lamarck thought particular traits conformed better to environmental demands and thuse were more likely to be passed on. Either way or neither way, traits evolved to better suit the demands of different environments and thus took on different attributes....skin color, physical size, hair consistency, lung capacity etc. How is it that Himalyan Sherpas can summit Everest year after year without supplemental oxygen while North American climbers are lucky to reach the summit once in a lifetime with only perfect conditions and oxygen tanks? Why do Ethiopian and Kenyan runners almost always win American marathons? Its not their modern training centers and supplements.

This type of example is true for every species of organism that takes up residence in different and unique environments. You can't deny it.

Anti-science people see this fact and either attack science as "eltitist", "liberal indoctrination" or some other appeal to the uneducated or they scurry through their bibles to find some passage that refers to god's hand having some play in it and twist and turn every ambiguous statement in that direction.

Science illiterates attack some flaw in Darwin's thought and then deny all of evolution as a result. Darwin could be completley wrong and the fact of evolution would still stand. Evolution is bigger than Darwin; it isn't Darwin.