@DarkScribe I take the underlying point. Scientists are generally extremely careful to point out the limitations of current knowledge and the importance of working with probabilities rather than certainties. Unfortunately for those accustomed to thinking in absolute truths this provides a rather handy loophole to exploit when making spurious god of the gaps arguments. Essentially the “Ahhhh, so you’re not certain….hmmm… Therefore you can’t rule out the ‘possibility’ that a supernatural misogynist magically farted into existence all creatures great and small.”
So although I acknowledge that evolutionary theory ‘could’ be overturned, I also acknowledge that words like ‘could’, and ‘possibly’ and ‘perhaps’ are so inclusive as to cover that which is reasonably likely, ridiculously unlikely, as well as that which is impossible without inventing other impossibilities to make it all seem more possible, through the shear collapsing weight of stupidity.
Basically people confuse the fact that just because they (or some goat herder 3000 years go) imagined something, and just because we can not categorically exclude anything from that which might be possible, ‘therefore’ what was imagined somehow hurdles the logic and evidence barrier in our heads to become a reasonable supernatural account of the world around us for us to live by.
Alas, I digress…my point…After 150 years of supporting, extensive, and overwhelming evidence from mutliple scientific fields for the fact that species evolve, I place the possibility of evolution being proved wrong in the exclusive “fucking ridiculously unlikely” pile.
I hope my position is clearer now…:)
thanks Ivan. I just didn’t want people to think, from Darwin’s comment, that there was a ladder of truth that evolutionary theory hadn’t yet assailed…and hence wasn’t ‘yet’ a law
nice link fyrius