well ed, what you call an insignificant brick, I consider to be a major component that I reckon destabilizes what is already an unproven,and philosophically constructed edifice derived from data that can be otherwise interpreted.   seems a bit like the minecraft building our youngster does on his laptop....its on the screen, and of wondrous proportions, but would collapse in real life.
as for shooting down science, I freely confess to that , when it is of the above origins interpretive sort. contrariwise you hope for an out , for the observational science that contradicts the myo dogma.
did you read what the scientist first said when she discovered that "anomaly".
being as she trusts long age theory more than the bible account, I bet she wishes her comments had been more guarded.
operational science will get along just fine without Darwinism. can you name any inventions that needed any imput from evolutionism?

joe- now I know why the apple choice of word!.

thankyou shimrod for answering my question,....and even more for conceding that your science education and interests has no bearing on evolutionist beliefs. to my mind, that means that you do in fact take what you are told about it on faith.
and also, confirming that evolutionism serves no useful purpose, other than providing some well paid jobs for propagating evolutionism.