First of all...

Quote Originally Posted by bacon ops View Post

I mean, who's to say God didn't employ evolution? Certainly not me.
I don't know about the other people in this thread, but this isn't about whether or not God exists. Where did you get that idea, you stupid twat?

Even when I did believe in God, I also believed in and defended evolution. When I first expressed an interest in science as a young child (despite my parents being in the humanities), my conservative Catholic father bought me books on natural history. I didn't even know about the religious debate surrounding evolution until I was like 10.

So again, this has NOTHING to do with whether God does or does not exist.

lol, it outlined the scientific method; woopty doo.
Let me quote a line for you from the movie, assmunch:

Let's face it: most people don't know that much about science or what goes on in the scientific community
This video is about why creationism is NOT science. People don't understand why it's not, and that's why it has to be differentiated from what IS science. You don't seem to get it that there's lacking a very basic understanding of what is science and what isn't science.

That said, some scientists have made Darwin their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.
Just like some stupid physicists have made Newton their personal prophet, and anyone who disagrees with his theory of gravitation is an idiot? I know, why can't people keep an open mind and consider other alternative, untested, and completely refuted theories?

The prof I was talking about was wonderfully open minded and listed arguments for and against it, using facts and details the layman wouldn't understand.
So then what's the use of having these facts and details communicated to the lay community if they can't understand it?

Like I said, I think the basics of how science works, why we should trust scientists, and the basics of how evolution works and what proof we have for it can all be understood and grasped by the lay person.

The simple fact is that there are things wrong with the whole evolution thing.

The simple fact is that there are things right with the whole evolution thing.
The simple fact is that we don't understand every single detail about natural history or about the mechanism of evolution.

The simple fact is that we don't understand everything about most things. The simple fact is that if we did, scientists wouldn't have much to do, now would they?

Yes, our understanding of evolution is incomplete. Likewise, our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete, as it is fundamentally incompatible with general relativity. However, I don't see people saying that it is "wrong" like they are saying evolution is wrong.

There is one thing that is correct to say: evolution is the only way that we can even begin to explain all the empirical evidence we've accumulated. We don't understand it completely. We're getting better at understanding how it works.

But a lack of current understanding is not a fundamental "problem" with the theory, as you say it is.