Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Sorry, but there is no actual evidence of design.
The scientists will say it looks like design...because no reasonable person would say it doesn't look designed...but they can't "scientifically" make the leap to assert that there is evidence of design.
Which is odd, because they make the leap to "random" causes being a necessary factor in their evolutionary theory, when there is no scientific evidence of a random force at work...apart from a lack of a known ordered and planned cause...so they opt for ignorance, meaning they assume random without actual knowledge and/or fact of random causation.
So in one situation, they consider a lack of evidence proper evidence to assume random, and in other situations they demand evidence before they can assume design.
It is logically inconsistent...but what the heck, they are scientists and are not bound to logical consistency.
That's why I take the position that we assume neither, and just stick to what is actually worthy of the term "evidence" when we teach science to children in public schools. Let the kids learn theory when they are past the stage of indoctrination, said indoctrination which happens when children are in primary and secondary schools.
Let them learn about the theories, when the have a firm foundation of science first, and are able to properly question their teachers on the theories that are presented. If that was done, we wouldn't have generations who believe dogmatically (without evidence mind you) that humans evolved from lower species by random chance.
Genuine scientific evidence is one thing, the opinions of scientists is another, and they are not equivalents.
