The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

I'm glad you said this. I've been moved to reply to Crash several times, but couldn't for lack of time.If I understood you correctly, I agree that what makes a theory scientific is the way its study and development is approached, not whether it is currently the best fit for the evidence. You mentioned the example of continental drift, and another good example is string theory. When first proposed, I think back in the 1970's, it looked intriguing because it explained some things the standard model of particle physics failed to account for, but it failed to explain so many things covered by the standard model that it was eventually abandoned as a fruitful area of study by most scientists. But some kept toiling away at it, and these efforts were not unscientific. Over time string theory was improved so that it now explains everything the standard model does, plus it makes predictions that if verified will validate the theory and replace the long-reigning standard model.But I think Crash may be trying to say something a little different than what it appears he's saying. I think what he really means is that it would be unscientific not if we investigated theories that explain the evidence less well, but only if we accepted such theories. Promising theories that explain the evidence less well are opportunities to be explored, not theories to be rejected, and I think Crash would agree with this.--Percy

I've read Pink Sasquatch's link to the Idea Center article (Here is the Idea Center source.). I haven't read the Scientific American article (Here is the Scientific American article they base it upon.) because I read it a couple years ago when it first came out, and I think I have a pretty fair recollection of what it says.I found the Idea Center article fairly innocuous, and I found Pink Sasquatch's characterization of it as "lying" both unnecessary and a bit of a stretch. Without going back to Pink's posts to see what he found most egregious, I assume this (and passages similar to it) is what caught his attention: The facts make this perspective difficult to justify, but I suspect others have already provided detailed explanations, so I won't bore you further. The primary point of the Idea Center article is that ID theory assumes that junk DNA has a function, and that if evolutionary biologists had instead used ID theory as an interpretive framework they would have made the discovory that some junk DNA has a function years earlier. Excepting that laboratory and analysis techniques might not have been up to the task until recently, I think the Idea Center is correct. ID theory definitely leads more directly to the possibility that junk DNA has a function, and that's a win for ID theory.Functional junk DNA fits neatly within a traditional evolutionary framework, and in fact makes more sense than if somehow huge amounts of DNA with no function had somehow been passed down across thousands of generations of evolutionary history. This and the fact that it was evolutionary biologists and not IDists who made the discovery is why ID is being given no credit or credence for this. It will be much better for ID if the next advance in knowledge is discovered by IDists. This would be a first.But Pink's main point is that the Idea Center article misrepresented the Scientific American article. I disagree. The Scientific American article does a fair job of misrepresenting the case all by itself, especially where it quotes Mattick, once saying the non-coding sequences "were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk", and later saying, "The failure...may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."This particular SciAm article is not by scientists but by a senior science writer, W. Wayt Gibbs. His flair makes for dramatic reading, but the conclusions it might lead one to reach about mistaken paths taken by evolutionary science are probably not widely shared within the field. Pink seems very familiar with the nuances of progress within evolutionary science, perhaps more so than Mr. Gibbs. Unfortunately, more and more main articles in SciAm are being written by non-scientists.--Percy

Which is a better theory can be a matter of opinion, it depends upon the specific circumstances. For example, say there are two theories attempting to explain five related phenomena, and which one explains each phenomena best differs like this: Even though Theory #2 explains more phenomena, it could still easily be debatable which theory is best, for any number of reasons. For instance, explaining some types of phenomena might be much more significant than others. But what about this case: In this case it would be perverse to accept Theory #1 and reject Theory #2. This is analogous to the situation between Creationism and science. Evolution explains the fossil progression in the geologic column, flood theory does not. Geology explains how the geologic layers formed, flood theory does not. Geology explains why the proportion of daughter products of radiometric elements increases with depth, flood theory does not. Evolution explains the diversity of species, Creationism does not. Evolution is consistent with the long time frames of geology and cosmology, Creationism is not.Any reasonable attempts at validation of scientific theory must include aggressively pursuing explanations of the evidence. Failing to explain portions of the evidence is an extremely significant fault. For example, despite string theory's stunning achievement of unifying gravity with the other three forces, its inability to produce sensible results for much particle behavior caused it to be rejected by the mainstream scientific community for the first 15 years of its life. It was rejected because failure to be consistent with the evidence is an extremely serious deficiency of the highest magnitude.The premise of this thread, that evolution lacks empirical support, is simply ludicrous and doesn't merit discussion. But the discussion that has developed concerning how one legitimately identifies viable theory is an important one. Every individual has personal criteria, but acceptance of theory is an informal consensus process of many scientists. No human endeavor has unanimity, and Creationists often make much of legitimate scientists like Michael Behe and Halton Arp who buck the mainstream. That their ideas are not accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean they're wrong, but an objective assessment of the span of phenomena explained by their preferred theories (ID for Behe, questioning the expanding universe for Arp) reveals a large number of holes. Unlike the theories of fringe scientists like Behe and Arp, widely accepted theories explain more of the data than any other theory.But that doesn't make Behe and Arp's theories unscientific (and in fact Behe has done no professional work in ID since he has never advocated ID in any of his technical papers, all of which are consistent with traditional theories within biology). In Arp's case, the small number of anomolies he's identified are dwarfed under mountains and mountains of evidence supporting mainstream views. The immense disparity in supporting evidence is why Arp's views are in the minority. But again, that doesn't make his views unscientific. Arp is in the middle of a legitimate scientific debate, albeit one he is losing badly.Where does one cross the line from being scientific to no longer being scientific? That's a tough one. I think I could write quite a bit and still not give anyone, including myself, a clear idea of how to tell. Probably it's best to not even try to answer this question, but instead just to assess the validity of any proposal from a scientific perspective. Instead of dividing theories into the scientific and the unscientific, we coudl probably more profitably divide them into categories ranging from "massively supported by evidence" down to "little evidential support" and continuing on down to "contradicted by the evidence."Evolution fits in the "massively supported by evidence" category, while Creationism fits in the "contradicted by the evidence" category. This is why Creationism has had to abandon scientific work and instead lobby school boards for representation in science class.--Percy