From: "Gary Britt" 

There is no direct observation of one species becoming another species.
There is plenty of direct observation of intra-species differentiation, but
none on trans-species evolution.  Trans-species evolution is argued to be
implied from some fossil observations, but has to be taken on *faith*. 
Even more *faith* is required to believe that something not alive became
something that was alive, and then through an unobserved and not even
implied by other observations that first something evolved through 10000's
of links of trans species evolution into modern man.  That is a whole lot
of
*faith* that is required for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution isn't
real, just that it takes a whole lot of *faith* and not *science* to believe in it.

I'm not familiar with the Dover trial to which you refer.

Gary

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:43789265{at}w3.nls.net...
> Given the vast amount of 'direct observation' in support of evolution
> through natural selection, and the zero amount of 'direct observation'
> regarding 'intelligent design' it's clear that some 'faith' is more
founded
> than others.
>
> 'Intelligent Design' is a conspiracy by fundamentalists to pervert the US
> Constitution. The testimony in its favour at the Dover trial was pathetic.
>
> Paul
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4377bfb2{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Until its proven through direct observation its just an idea that takes
> > "faith" to believe in it.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
> > news:4377abdd{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Gary Britt wrote:
> >> > The punch line is pretty funny.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Fights over evolution-- and its faddish new
camouflage, intelligent
> >> >>  design, a pseudoscience that posits without proof
or method that
> >> >> science is inadequate to explain existence and that
supernatural
> >> >> causes must be considered--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > science posits theories to explain existence without
proof or method
> >> > also. That's the real point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, those are hypotheses. A hypothesis needs to be tested before it can
> >> be regarded as a theory. A quick web search turned up this definition:
> >>
> >> > A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a
scientist devises
> >> > a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it
> >> > against available data (obtained from previous experiments and
> >> > observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist
> >> > declares it to be a theory.
> >>
> >> More at http://a9.com/difference%20between%20theory%20and%20hypothesis
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tony
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5