Ok, easy questions first, we know the Big Bang happened because the expansion of the universe is measurable and the observable radiation and energy in the universe fits exactly in with what it should be according to Big Bang theory. Next!

Fair enough that you dispute its ‘totally, totally’ provable – that’s my overly excitable language at work. But to call evolution just speculation (or philosophical)…well, that’s just plain nuts. It’s science. Seriously.

One mistake you make is thinking that genes need to just appear out of nowhere for a new species to begin. This isn't how evolution happens. New species come from recoding of DNA, or combinations of genes. This is an important distinction. A mutation is when a couple of genes are coded differently within DNA, and evolution is when this results in a gene combo more likely to survive. The mutation stays, and in another however many years the process happens again, the slight changes better adapted for survival stick, and the ones that aren’t helpful die off. Give it enough mutations and separate this group of animal from the original, and you’ll end up with a group so mutated from the original, it can be considered a new species.

Of course there are fossils of transitional species – any species, living or extinct, can be considered a transitional species. What we are now can be considered as the transitional point between what we used to be and whatever we will evolve to in the future. But since we can’t predict the future, we have no way of telling what genetics will prove to be the best adapted for survival, and thus cannot predict in which direction we will evolve.

Plus, considering how incredibly unlikely it is for an animal to become fossilised, and how much of the land on earth remains unsearched, it’s lucky we have found as many fossils as we have.

Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it?

There’s a reason for that.

t.u.s: Well, almost all fossils are examples of intermediate/transitionary species. (But I see spendocrat has already pointed that out.) Given the low probability of fossil formation and the limited things they can show, it isn't surprsing that we don't have comprehensive evidence; but there is quite enough to show that it happens. I'm sure there are many different mechanisms involved(eg. genetic drift) and you are proabably more schooled in those things than I am.

mykah Part 1:
"Your main point as I understand, is that in those areas (SETI, detective work, archeology) there is prior knowledge of a designer, so it is valid to look for one,"
First let me repeat that I'm not saying those things are science, (which is the real issue) nor am I saying that it is ever "invalid" (not sure what you mean by that) to look for a designer. I am saying that those things are closer to science because they have prior evidence to suggest the possibility and they know what to look for. (Yes this is true for SETI: we exist and have radio.) Those two things make the decision to search more logical & supported and thus more reasonable. It would not be reasonable for a detective upon seeing evidence of strangling/suffocation to consider whether Darth Vader or a daemon may have done it. He has not made an assumption that the Sith Lord is involved, but he has assumed the possibility of it, ie. developed the hypothesis, without any prior evidence.

"but with the order we see in the universe, it is not valid to test and see if there is a designer behind it because nobody has ever seen such a designer."
Again, let me say that ID is about biological design not the universe; the creation of the universe is not relevant to a discussion of evolution. The problem isn't that it is invalid to test for a designer, it is that we can't or at least don't know what to test for, and that it isn't following the scientific method.

i'd agree with deuc that a number of gaps in the fossil record are a result of the low probablity of fossil formation, the other issue of course is that soft tissue (where you would expect the smaller and more gradual mutations to occur before effecting the bone structure) is even less likely to be fossilised than solid matter, hence it is very rare that scientists get the oportunity to study the very early forms of life.

intersestingly, there are a number of digs in china at the moment that are producing a large amount of dinosaur solf tissue, including feathers (in suprisingly large amounts). the arm structure of smaller dinosaurs is suggesting that instead of the idea that they evolved into birds from gliding reptiles, the arms and feathers (originaly display and insulation) were held out from the body and used to create downforce, stabalising the animal and allowing them to run much faster. obviously, larger arms and feathers would make an animal a much more effective hunter, hence the success of those particular gene combinations.

the point of all this? that we are seeing documentable evidence of the evolution, not only from one species to another, but from one whole class of organism (only took about 15000000 years).

spendocrat,
Your statement is incorrect and sweeping: Quote, "Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it?"

I have two close friends who attends my Church, one is professor of microbiology in UWS, the other a retired professor of physics previously involved in the NASA space programmes who are not in any way atheistic evolutionist, but prefer intelligent design.

The theory of evolution is based upon intelligent deduction from sequential principles of design. Atheists cannot argue that living species are random accidental mutations. There is causal evidence of emergence or degrading of a species. The present human genome is weakening because parents are exposed to higher levels of radiation are fertilizing older ovum, using less virulent spermatozoa.

mykah Part 2:

Scientist notices unexplained occurrences, then comes up with a hypothesis to explain those observations, deductions are made from the hypothesis and those are tested against new observations or experiments. If the hypothesis passes the test then it can be called a theory.

Applying this to ID:
We have no unexplained occurrences -- nothing that couldn't potentially be explained by evolution, although there are gaps in our understanding of specific mechanisms. For ID, the hypothesis comes first which is a not so good thing. It doesn't explain anything about the principle behind the occurences, which is very bad. No deductions can be made from the hypothesis, there is no way to test the hypothesis or conduct experiments based on it and so it is not falsifiable and can never become a scientific theory. (Some criticise string theory for being metaphysics not science; for similar reasons.)

"It is only those who have a prior assumption (or prejudice) against the idea of intelligent design who pronounce that ID is unscientific. "
No, there are many people who don't accept evolution but don't think ID is science or should be excluded from schools. The methodology is what is important, ID does not follow the scientific method and hence is not science. Saying Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb is not science, detailing how the bomb destroyed Hiroshima is; ID could have oodles of evidence but it still wouldn't be science.

"A scientific attitude will follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it is to a philosophically unpalatable conclusion. "
Yes, science doesn't care about philosophy or anything else; but there isn't any evidence. Even if there was, the (current) ID hypothesis still doesn't describe a mechanism and can't be tested.

Pericles,
“There are still people out there who believe that there is in fact a rain-god who can, when asked nicely, cause the rain to fall, but they are mostly English cricketers these days.”

I think you will find it is the Aussie cricketers theses days… :-)

As to evolution vs. ID, how’s this:
God induced evolution as a part of his ‘scheme’ called creation. Gives everyone a say. Still, there’s no need to call it science and every possibility that it can be discussed in philosophy or theology. Now everyone should be happy. Except those that don’t want to be a relation to a guy/gal still hanging in the trees… or on the sea bed… or on the open plains of Africa… or the mountains of Tibet… or… oh, bugger it. Just get used to the idea we’re all related.