[Simonius]

Quote by: Jack Please expand on what you consider "true" science.

I said true empirical science, as in that which you test in a laboratory.

Quote by: Jack Evolution is a conclusion based on the evidence. How does that equate with two speculations based on no evidence?

Well I would argue that Evolution is a conclusion that is not inconsistent with the evidence, and that the same is true of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The fossil record for instance is not inconsistent with the idea that evolution occured, it does not prove it. It is not the only conclusion that can be drawn, I am not even sure that it is the most logical conclusion. The fossil record is equally not inconsistent with creationism, nor intelligent design. Indeed it shows that at certain points in history life burst forth in abundance in a relatively short space of time, and it offers no opinion as to whether or not an entity sat down and designed us.

Quote by: Jack It's incorrect to suggest evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. Here's just one example: Battling bacterial evolution: the work of Carl Bergstrom

Aaah... allow me to explain, what I really meant was that evolution as in the development of all life on earth from amino acids, the development of aquatic creaures to land dwellers, the development of humanity from ultimately a small rodent like ancestor etc etc can not be test in a laboratory. Creationists except that micro-evolution, small changes within a species can occur and that these can be observed, what they claim is that the sum of these micro-evolutionary changes can not change one species into another species. And that claim can't be verified in a lab, there exists other evidence either way but not laboratory evidence.