The record isn't clear at all and I didn't mention religion at all when talking about the absence of transitional fossils. They don't exist. The oldest fossil of a dog is a dog. Same with a cat. Mouse. Human. This is a huge problem for the evolution theory.
And I've looked at the facts, both for and against. Try reading "Darwin's Black Box." Raises issues that are fatal to the theory of evolution.
BB - I haven't read the book but I did look up some info on the author and it really does appear that he's just a creationist.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_BeheBehe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community, including his own department, the Department of Biological Sciences, at Lehigh University.
Behe's testimony in
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is
not science but essentially religious in nature.
In a November 8, 1996 interview Richard Dawkins said of Behe:
"He's a straightforward creationist. What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."
By this time, Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was a public and critical success. Scientists however responded by arguing that Behe's arguments and examples were based only a refined form of
"argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while
avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claimsScientists were again highly critical of the claims made about the research, pointing out that it not only had been shown that a supposedly Irreducibly Complex structure could evolve, but that it could do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions. They also objected to it being claimed as published evidence for design given that it offered no design theory or attempt to model the design process, and also failed to offer an alternative to evolution.
