> You are mistaken in saying that my belief is that
> evolution is a ‘done deal’, or that it is
> ‘cemented in science’. Of course it is not
> proven, no Theory is ever proven, even gravity is
> not 100% proven, although from long experience and
> knowledge we can pretty well take it for granted.
I'm pretty sure you've called evolution "fact".
Are you saying you take evolution for granted?
Or do you just accept what the authorities say?
> Can you give one or two examples of the problems
> you see in evolution?
No. You are an extremely opinionated person. You claim to know all about evolution so I assume you are aware of the problems. I see no point in going over them here, as I'm sure in the upteen threads, in which you railed against God, the problems have been brought up. If you see no problems then I wish you a blissfully rosy life wherein critical thinking does not disturb your dreams.
> No-one has said we do have to choose between them.
> Evidence points to the TofE being the best and
> most reliable method for discovering true facts,
> and on the other hand, we have zero evidence (the
> objective kind) for any god.
Wait a minute.... you're saying the theory of evolution is the best method for proving itself.
Like saying Creationism is the best method for proving God.
Start with a conclusion, and use that conclusion to prove itself.
Some would disagree on there being no evidence for god. Guess it depends on your definition of evidence. If you define it as that which can be duplicated in a lab, you'll have to throw out your TOE. Or maybe you define it as: whatever an authority says must be fact because he/she wouldn't be an authority if they didn't know what they were talking about.
> DNA has opened the door to other possibilities.
> Could you suggest one of these possibilities -
> i.e. one that has a hypothesis, that has
> beentested, peer reviewed etc? I find all the new
> information about galaxies etc riveting and only
> wish I had a hundred or more years to live to
> learn it!!
Nothing I could say would make sense to you. And why does it have to be peer reviewed and tested? Tested in a lab or in the field? How would you test TOE? How would you create a new species? Because that's exactly what you'd have to do to prove TOE. I don't think you understand the question you're asking.
How exactly would you test the possibility of directed panspermia or E.T. intervention/intelligence/intention? Science can't even explain the "WOW" signal, but you want a tested hypothesis on ID! Tell you what, you find an E.T. we can drag into a lab, and you'll have all the tests you need.
And don't get into peer reviewed. What a farce that can be! Sometimes it's only 1 or 2 people who are the "peer" that do the "reviewing". Often peer review is used to uphold the status quo and suppress theories that threaten the ivory towers. What a perfect world it would be if the "peers" were fine upstanding honest souls who only cared for the truth. If this is the world you're living in Susan, you would be the perfect product of an authoritarian society.
> The argument, as you call it, has been largely set
> up by those who want to believe in some kind of
> god/whatever. Those who are on the science
> ‘side’ await a fact from the opposing side.
Just as I await a fact from TOE.
The argument originated between catastrophism and evolution. The church came in after. See Anaximander 6th cent. b.c., Lamarck 18th cent., "Vestiges of Creation" by Chambers. At the time of Darwin's naturalist 5 yr journey on the Beagle, there was a school of geologists (naturalists) who saw evidence of a great deluge in the geologic record. Equating a great deluge with the biblical flood, this catastrophe would be drowned out by those who wished to expunge from science any reference to a biblical flood. Catastrophism died out and the result is that today, we discredit anything that can be connected to the bible (religion) with the prejudiced view that the bible is not history and only science can determine the history of the planet. No matter how strong the evidence is for a catastrophe, if it reminds one of the bible it will be stomped with a great fury (by the peer reviewing academia). Consequently, a global cosmic catastrophe is not in your sights. However I see that "science" has been quick to absorb every change, every deviance, every behavior into the TOE. So that now, whatever objection one may raise to TOE, that objection is now included in TOE. Ex; speciation. They've even swept the "missing links" under the carpet, now calling them "transitional fossils". Clever rewording. If there are no missing links, why did they need to invent the label "transitional"? Because it shows a transition between fossil A and C. It shows a link. Different word, same concept.
> I personally am not *stuck* in any concrete idea.
> The whole point of knowing that the scientific
> method is the best we have is that at any point
> new information could well improve or vary an
> existing Theory and I, for one, would be foolish
> then to reject it.
IF new information sees the light of day.