It simply is what they thought was surely true a few years ago with new evidence is no longer true and what they thought wasn't true now is shown to be true after all. Evidence still has to be interpreted by one's view point. Sometimes the evidence you thought pointed clearly in one direction then with new information can point totally in the opposite direction. Thus even science requires faith. (I know atheist hate that word).
You missed my point completely, or more likely you knew the answer didn't support your argument so you gave me a vague answer.
You're right, sometimes you can draw wrong conclusions from evidence. But I get the feeling the guy in the link you gave me was just discussing technicalities of evolution that have been discovered to be wrong, especially as you failed to address my question to whether or not that was what he meant. That doesn't mean evolution is wrong, in fact there are lots of theories that still have debates over technicalities, atomic theory, gravity, quantum theory, etc. But no one says these are wrong because they don't directly contradict the bible, or other religious beliefs.
Also, science can't have anything to do with faith by definition. Science requires evidence, faith requires a complete lack of evidence.
As some has pointed out right now there isn't really a "theory of evolution" as we learn the cell is much more complex than we even thought a few decades ago.
Well that's just wrong, how much more of a theory could you want? It's supported by genetics and fossil records, we know that very slight mutations can occur, we know that the mutations that are passed on are usually beneficial to the animals in the environment they were living in. We can even observe evolution happening today in bacteria when they become resilient to antibiotics. Saying none of that counts because we know more about the cell is just like saying atomic theory isn't a theory because we know more about what atoms are made of than when the theory was made.
I happen to realize today the Wendy's I go to often is powered just like the RLN. Instead of receiving power from the pole right beside of it the power line cross the intersection goes about 300 feet away from the intersection then crosses the road again then the line goes underground to Wendy's. ( I don't know why the power company did it that way but I'm sure they had their reasons.
Again your analogy is completely invalid. Your argument is basically, oh I'm sure god had his reasons we just don't know what it is yet. Do you even understand how science works? Not by making assumptions and then finding things that fit our assumptions, and things that don't fit them we will ignore because we might find something later that makes those things fit our assumption.
The difference between this and your analogy, is in your analogy we know that the wires were designed, so it's safe to assume that there is a reason for them being designed like they are. You can't assume that there is a reason for the nerve being designed like it is, because we don't know the nerve is designed.
As far as nerves playing a big role in embryo development I read that from a book many years ago. IF I remember where I've read (if I still have it) that I will pass it on.
Well you can't use it as an argument until you find some scientific evidence of how that exact nerve growing in the way it does helps embryo development. And I don't think you will ever find that evidence because I'm sure Dawkins or the biologist he was talking to would know about it if it existed.
Is he implying evolution is wrong, natural selection is wrong, or just some aspect of either of them isn't quite right? Because it's no secret that there are debates within evolution, like there are in lots of theories, but that doesn't mean the entire theory is wrong.
