The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

Various evidence has been presented to you many times. The power of your perspective is measured by it's ability to persuade others, and not by your persistance at denying that anyone's presented you evidence for evolution. To be effective, you either have to challenge the evidence on the merits, or you have to present your own evidence, and preferably both.--Percy

You keep repeating this, but you also keep failing to address the response. IC is not evidence, but an interpretation, just as evolution is not evidence, but an interpretation. We're not ignoring evidence, just pointing out that not only do you have no evidence for IC, you also have no evidence for your proposed mechanism.Evolution, on the other hand, has much evidence. Behe, who you've quoted several times, accepts almost all of evolution. He only questions its ability to produce structures he feels are irreducibly complex. He has no evidence, only his claim that they are irreducibly complex, a claim widely questioned and fairly thoroughly rebutted, including the example of the flagella you mentioned, and probably already described for you in other threads.--Percy

Darwin gets the credit because he put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Wallace did the same, though later. Even though Darwin hadn't formally published, by the time Wallace's ideas came to the attention of the British scientific community, Darwin had already established priority for his ideas through a voluminous correspondence.Darwin also gets the credit because he presented, explained and interpreted a large body of evidence supportive of evolution. While Darwin included and built upon the idea of the mutability of species, he never claimed to have originated the idea. As in all science, he built upon the work of other scientists.As the years went by after the publication of Origins, one of the criticisms Darwin received was that he credited too few people, and the list of acknowledgements grew longer with each edition.It isn't necessary or even valid to malign the popular image of Darwin in order to discredit the idea of evolution because, as we all know, Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. Since this is a know fact, and since it has been scientifially established that deathbed recantations take priority over issues of evidence and interpretation, obviously the theory is false. --Percy

Archaeologists and anthropologists are not looking for evidence of design, but for evidence of being man-made. There is a big difference. Your various criteria, such as specified complexity and irreducible complexity and so forth are not tools of these fields. That practitioners in these fields aren't bigtime IDists also speaks against your point. Whatever evidence of ID you think you are seeing out there, it certainly doesn't resemble anything man-made.--Percy

This clarifies further that this isn't a process followed by archaeologists and anthropologists, and certainly not by practicing scientists. It is notable for its lack of objective criteria, and it strongly exhibits a subjective Beyesianism quality.--Percy

Creationists have been touting this sea change in scientific opinion for well over half a century now. Were it actually taking place, the scientific consensus would long ago have begun endorsing Creationism. Science means basing conclusions upon evidence. Believing in an "Eternal, All-powerful Creator" as a matter of faith is fine, but before you can call it science you must have evidence.--Percy