Firstly, you’re wrong. I cited my evidence several times. In fact, I did as well or better than Bethell on many points which is remarkable because his is a supposedly a work of non-fiction, and book reviews typically aren’t required the same stringency.

Aside from that, I refer to a body of scientific work that can easily be sought out on its own. Your analogy to evidence for the feasibility of the flood would lead one down a twisted path of theological musings peppered with Biblical quotes. My evidence has been compiled by people actually honestly trying to learn from the world, yours has been gathered by people imposing their limited understanding upon it.

If you’d really like to see overwhelming evidence, check out Talk Origins.com where every single one of these points is addressed in detail. In addition, they have compiled a large database of evidence for evolution.

But, then you probably don’t give a shit about actual empirical evidence. Perhaps you should visit this museum, where the kind of “evidence” you respond to is on display.

“Earth is only 13,000 years old because many generations of scientists have said so” is not evidence.

Or

“He clearly did not understood how the flood took place and was possible, and ignored much evidence which shows the flood clearly happened” isn’t true merely because I said so.

Got that?

In response to your two points:
1) The return on investment from “speculative research” is extremely debatable, and I think your statement that very little, even relatively, is being returned is absolutely untrue. Basic research led to the creation of silicon microchips, an invention that has revolutionized our entire world. I could surely list dozens of such advances. Also, showing how little we know is invaluable as well, because in shedding false theories we come closer to the truth.

2) Your strict definition of “proof” is absolutely unachievable by science. There is concrete evidence that driving your SUV will cause global warming, though how catostrophic it will be depends on speculation. Your SUV releases more CO2 than other vehicles, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere, our planet is warming, greenhouses gases cause the planet to warm, therefore driving your SUV contributes to global warming in greater proportion than other vehicles will. I don’t know what more “proof” is required if you cannot accept logical lines of evidence that lead to a specific conclusion.

Finally, I disagree that I did not refute any of Bethell’s points. Perhaps you do not agree with my refutation, but that is your opinion to hold.

“And, if similarity of ancestry is the simplest answer that provides the most explanatory power, it is probably the correct theory.”

This comment of yours goes to the heart of what his book is trying to say, that today, too many scientists are taking theories with “the most explanatory power” as fact. They then pronounce them as fact for their own personal gain, whether it be for money or fame (you can’t deny this doesn’t happen in light of the recent korean cloning fiasco).

There are two main problems that ‘right-wingers’ have with this type of science.

1. A lot of money is being spent on speculative research that has produced very little (realitivly) e.g. embrionic stem-cell research & Gnome project. All it has produced is to show how little we really do know.

2. This speculative science has become the new ‘religion’… There is no concrete ‘proof’ that driving our SUV’s are going to cause catastrophic global warming. Saying it is so isn’t that much different than saying ‘by angering the trees the volcano god is going to erupt and destroy your village’

Yes there are a lot of facts in regard to such things as stem-cell, evolution, global warming, etc. No mater how plausible the science seems, without proof it shouldn’t dictate laws nor gather more money than it deserves. Scientific facts have been turned on their head too many times to not take caution in touting these facts to the public. Which is the main point of this book.