Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

In randman's defense, he did start Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils, and is still posting in its continuation Land Mammal to Whale transition: fossils Part II. He sees the evidence discussed in those threads as a problem for evolution, while the evolutionists see the evidence as supportive. That's an example of where he thinks the evolutionists are relying on faith in their theory, rather than on the evidence.For myself, I agree with the evolutionists here. There isn't a problem in the data. But I can also see why the explanations given, for what randman sees as discrepancies, might appear to him to be a sleight of hand. And that's why, to randman, it looks as if the responses are being driven by faith in the theory of evolution.

Creationists tend to think of evolution in terms of how a modern cat could evolve into a modern dog. They expect that to require a transitional that would be half cat, and half dog. They want to refute evolution on the basis of the absence of such transitionals.If that were how evolution worked, then looking for transitionals might make sense. But, of course, the theory really only claims that dogs and cats have a common ancestor. Once you realize that, then you don't expect the transitions to demonstrate any problem.I don't see an error in the creationist's concern over transitionals. The real error is in their deep misunderstanding of what evolution is all about. Their concern with transitionals is merely a symptom of that deep misunderstanding.Creationists do often see evolution as a matter of faith, because we fail to address what they think are the big issues. We might not persuade many creationists to correct their deep misunderstanding. But we do need to at least discuss the issues. This forum is presumably being read by many people who are confused and have not made up their minds. We should be discussing the issues that confuse them.To get back on topic, you make a good point when you use Dr. Bakker as an example to illustrate that evolution is not a kind of anti-Christian faith.

Isn't that pretty much what Darwin did? But you can only go so far with the data. After you have a body of data, you need to develop some sort of theory that encompasses the available data. Otherwise all you have is a mess of statistics. On the contrary, it matches very well. What it does not match, is your expectations of what the fossil record should be.My point is that the fossils fit into the ToE account. You may think that there are missing fossils, but missing fossils are not part of the fossil record. I think it reasonable to ask why the fossil record does not show the gradualism that the neo-Darwinist account would seem to predict. Indeed, Gould and Eldredge asked that question, and came up with PE.For the record, I think there are problems with neo-Darwinism, but I don't see problems with the broader ToE (assuming one allows PE as an alternative to neo-Darwinism). And I don't see any need for new biological mechanisms, nor for ID.