real life saidQuote:A problem, as I see it, is that if science approaches all evidence with an assumption of evolution, for instance (' Since Evolution is true, how does this evidence fit into the theory? ' ) , then aren't interpretations of evidence almost certainly bound to be bent to try to go along with the status quo and no other interpretations likely to be even considered
. Im sorry that you see it that way but when a group of fossils (just for an eg) are found we usually establish 3 things:
1A Linnean morphology (Is the fossil clearly identifiable within a certain group?) In that respect, we usually teqr the sucker apart to see whether anything deviates from a "bauplan"
2Stratigraphic context-What is the age in which the fossil's stratigraphy suggests? This often leads to all sorts of fancy chemistry, physics and correlation with nearby stratigraphy
3-Environmental contex-What sort of death assemblage is represented. Did the animal die of thirst, hunger, slipped n a hill of mud etc etc.
Sometimes the evidence just fits very tightly. Often the Evolutionary significance of many fossils are toosed out because the fossils are found to be contemporaneous with their supposed ancestors and this always presents a problem. We never hide the fact (The fossil hunters sometimes try to fake things to assist their specimen negotiation discussions but we leave them behind with all the "fossil fakers " out there). As I said, we never hide the fact that a fossil doesnt fit within a smooth sequence of intermediaries. Right now the very argument whether birds arose from dromeiosaurs or whether dinosaurs and birds both rose from an earlier common ancestor is being slowly revealed . Nobody took an evolutionistic turn in the fossil revelations in this controversy. In fact, quite the opposite, a number of scientists began preaching a version of punctuated equilibrium (which to me fits nicely in a spasmodic "Creationist" argument).
If only the Creationists would actually go out in the field and do something to advance their arguments, it would actually be a lot more fun to test their hypotheses against hard evidence that (usually grad students) are finding.
As far as the Circumstantial evidence accusation, "Guilty as charged", but as I said before, hunting and piecing together fossil stories is a forensic exercise. Itsno different than hunting down a crime via evidence. We can place a fossil at a point in time, in a certain environmetal setting and its of a certain species. Instead of a murderer we have an explanation that , places a suspect in a fence of evidence that is given a "best fit" test.
If I were to adopt your wish that we give an honest consideration to either Creationist or Intelligent Design hypotheses, then Ive got too many fossils here. The story of Creationism and its "sudden appearance fully formed" gets a bit lame because all these "sudden" appearances of genera occur through spans of time and are connected to precursor forms that display minor "model changes" as deep time progresses, and all this occurs by means that cannot support a Global Flood. We have dinosaurs and mammals that were killed by falling into sand traps or falling off high slopes on land(In fact, almost all dinosaur fossils, with the exception of the Mosasaurs and Pleisiosaurs, are found on ancient ground, not seawater). Also, as far as the fully formed argument, we have too many damn fossils, independently found with similar morphological features that span two or more genera.
We have reptile like birds and bird-like reptiles. We have reptile- like dinosaurs and dinosaur- like reptiles, dinosaur- like mammals and mammal- like dinosaurs. We just have way too much data and evidence to deal with to just try to slip in a pat Biblical based or ID based story.
If things were created, why does the evidence support the no brainer conclusion that most life went extinct? Is this Intelligent Design or just bilogical tinkering?.
Or, are my eyes believing something that is not there? ;-)
