[gallo]

Quote by: nokton This debate on creationism V evolution I feel misses the point entirely.

What point is that?

Quote by: nokton Firstly, intelligent design? Doubt that. Any intelligent creator would have taken a much shorter time than 3+ billion years to realise a creation that expresses intelligence.

And most creationists, even ID creationists assert so. Some claim that it took as little as 6 days.

Quote by: nokton Evolution as a science is still in it's infancy, and as such, much misunderstood.

Evolution has been going on since life first appeared. What do you mean that it is in its infancy? Or are you talking about evolutionary theory? I think it is misguided to refer to the evolutionary biology as being in its infancy too. It is even more misguided to say that evolutionary biology in misunderstood. Maybe you misunderstand it, but evolutionary biologists don't. There is still a lot to learn about the specific mechanisms of life, but we don't misunderstand much. The basics of evolution are understood pretty well, in fact.

Quote by: nokton Secondly the creationist view is based on mythology and dogma with no factual evidence whatsoever.

That is true.

Quote by: nokton Science is shooting itself in the foot by contesting it,

Then it is your opinion that we should allow science to be replaced in public school curriculums with the mythology of creationism?

Quote by: nokton science grows by questioning current thinking in the light of new discovery, and changing its opinions according to new knowledge.

Actually not a very good description of how science works.

Quote by: nokton Religion has no such dimension, it is rooted in dogma that subscibes to an unchanging belief that truth as we know it, is forever set. May I express my sincere apololgy to anyone offended by my above.

It is based on the belief that the Bible contains the literal history of the earth

Quote by: nokton As I implied above, evolution is poorly understood, there are so many questions it raises rather than answers.

You didn't imply it above, you stated it above. And you are wrong. It isn't poorly understood. To say that there is still much to learn does not mean that what we know is poorly understood. Consider that Darwin's original theories have not been falsified to this day. He was shown to be wrong in some of his minor speculations (even Darwin changed his theories from the 1st edition to the 6th edition of Origin), but his work has been expanded more than replaced.

Quote by: nokton Would suggest there is a program written within the genetic code as an adaptive software program, that is self learning. Am not interested where it comes from, would not be so arrogant to try to understand the why or wherefore, or even contemplate.

Except that there doesn't seem to be any such program. In fact, such an assertion is actually quite contrary to evolutionary theory.

Quote by: nokton Least of all, believe I know the answer.

I don't believe it either.

Quote by: nokton Just knowing have an insight and idea is enough for now.

Thank God it isn't enough for scientists. Scientists actually want to learn about nature. Your attitude is more akin to that of creationists than it is to scientists.