Seems I need to clarify my position once more.   I have not said that the evidence proves genesis, but is ,I believe consistent with it. Best I heard, experimental science ,for example ,expects soft tissue to disappear way sooner than millions of years past.. Claiming gaps of knowledge is simply begging the question. The refusal to trust the findings of experimental science to protect evolutionism strikes me as being philosophically committed to naturalism, not because the evidence demands it.                   Well ,actual, I suppose if there actually were the gradulated fossil evidence that Darwin expected I would certainly have a lot less confidence.    And what does it prove if a trilobite and a horse is not found together ?. I would say it might be possible but it would not be in the expected order of burial as the flood prevailed.
Bill...by the same token,the evolutionist that a priori believes in Darwinism and then looks to fit the evidence is not acting as a scientist either!      And to refer to Gould again.....the idea of the totally impartial scientist is self serving myth.                               Stu.....I seem to remember that blounts paper was arguing the toss as to what mechanism provided citrate absorption in E. coli. Lemkis experiments hardly demonstrate microbes to man evolution....just adaption. After all those generations ,we find that E. coli has turned into...e coli!