46% of Americans believe in Creationism

[Final-Fan]

OooSnap said:

Final, I don't consider an ad hoc explanation, or a just-so story, or speculation scientifuc. Can you reproduce such a scenario? Can you produce observational evidence? Can it be tested?
Show me the hard scientific evidence.
It's interesting that the standards of the scientific method drop considerably low when it comes to evolution.
"Evolution takes a long time so we are unable to see it".. Riiiiight.
You are free to believe it but don't ever say it qualifies as hard science.

Richard Dawkins once said evolution has never been observed while it is happening. I'm serious, you can Google it. Let's just call evolution what it is which is a belief not based on hard science.

No, we cannot reasonably reproduce the evolution from non-flying animals to flying ones in laboratory setttings. 
Yes, scientists haveprduced observational evidence of fossils of creatures sequentially evolving to be more capable of flying. 

Evolutionary science doesn't have lower standards, it's just that you are so opposed to what that science is reporting that you view it with not only much more skepticism and attention to potential weak points but also with great eagerness to accept whatever criticism is offered even if the criticism is weak. 

The reason Dawkins said that we haven't observed it while it's happening is that an individual doesn't evolve.  Over time, the individuals in the species evolve to become physically different than what they used to be.  But this happens from generation to generation so you can't "see" them changing.  The difference in a single generation of individuals would probably be impossible to detect compared to the normal deviation of individuals within a species.  For instance, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that humans are evolving to be taller.  Well, there is still a great deal of variation within humanity as far as how tall people are, so if one generation was on average 1/5th of an inch taller than the older one, that wouldn't really be apparent. 

It's not that we don't see evolution because of how long it takes.  We don't see it because you literally can't see that evolution is happening.  You can only see that it has happened. 

I would also like to let Dawkins give some context to his own quote: 
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…
MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.
DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.