"Dan Youngquist" wrote in message
hell.org...
True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition.

Doesn't sound to me like you're actually doing much learning.

Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if fossils
supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence would
disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.)

Your assertion is that there is no fossil evidence in support of evolution?

Things have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution --
the more we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a
scientific standpoint.

Hardly. Evolution has not only received strong support from geological
evidence, but from laboratory experiments as well.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

A fundamental component of science is a testable hypothesis. Evolution
qualifies for this, "intelligent design" does not.

Evolution proponents do not "insist that _only_ evolution be taught". What
they do insist on is that in science class, the topics be restricted to
things that are valid science. If someone came up with an alternative
theory that actually proposed a testable hypothesis, I'm sure they would
have no trouble accepting that as a teachable topic.

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than the religious idea of a creation
by a supreme being restated. It contains no actual theory for process, no
testable hypothesis, nothing that would even remotely qualify it as science.

The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition.

You have that backwards.

[...]
Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

It seems that you understand neither evolution nor thermodynamics. Entropy
is in no way a counter-proof to evolution.

Pete