Since you seem to be accusing every evolutionary biologist of lying, I think you'd better explain what you mean and/or back up that statement.
The phrase "playing fast and loose with the facts" does not refer to lies. Most are not outright mouthing untruths. Some believe their pronouncements and deceive themselves (like it says in James). However, many make asssertions in this debate that they know are untrue.
As an example, I saw with my own eyes in an essay from Steven Gould (a counter to Creation book) that the fossil record universally supports the evolutionary time-line everywhere without exception. That may be a paraphrase offhand, but the quote says just that. As a paleontological biologist he knows better.
He also referred to the lack of transitional forms as the "trade secret of panleontology". So when you see assertions that all palentologists know the fossil record support gradual complexification over billions of years, remember it is a "privacy curtain" to hide their secret from view.
What do you expect a transitional form to look like, so that it is neither a trilobite nor another species? What exactly would fit your definition of a transitional?
Using any reasonable set of criteria: morphological, genetic, etc. There are some big ones. Despite some efforts to fit square pegs into round holes, there's no half-reptile/half-bird. Archaeopterix is a reptile with wings. The "feathers" were a stretch. The only one they ever discovered was the cut-and-paste plater-of-Paris sample a remote Chinese farmer used that sent them all atwitter until their letdown. At least it didn't take 50 years like Piltdown man. Now that's a really really big gap. There are zillions. Pick your flavor.
How could there not always be gaps? However many (finite) fossils you get you are examining what is essentially a continuum. You can't build a line with a finite number of points. You seem to want to demand evidence of evolution that would not be expected of evolution. Which is, infact, mathematically impossible whatever the model.
This is exactly the idea I was addressing. Palentologists today know that they don't have anywhere near what they would expect from evolution, despite Gould's weak theory. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of species that in turn have tens, dozens, some hundreds and some thousands of individuals in the fossil record. These are not rare at all. They show (according to the "x-Darwinist" timeline) that the species appears suddenly in the record, exists for a time, and then disappears. Except for some that are categorically extinct as of 100 million years ago that show up in the South Atlantic or somewhere.
No-one says that science is infallible
No one is expecting infallibility. In fact, there is only one book that has proven so. The "would that they would apply the scientific method to this area" was the answer to the statement (from your post) requesting that we apply it. That is the point Creationists have been making. There is a difference between
facts and interpretations.
Only if you throw away all evidence otherwise.
You'll never find evidence in the real world that contradicts the Biblical Word. On the other hand, there is plenty more fit in the world for the Creation model than for the "spontaneous combustion" model.
Citations please. Every creationist says this, and not one has yet shown me ANY evidence this is true.
Previous posters have offered up links to the list of scientists associated with the
www.icr.org web site. That is a partial list. There are a large number of Creationist sites populated by mostly scientists with all the credentials you want. You'll see that a great many of them started out as "x-Darwinists". Their memberships and activities are growing as they only can if this is true. Duane Gish and other well-known figures are also examples.
But there is more. There are famous names like Francis Crick, I think Halley, and more who say there couldn't have been any spontaneous bio-generation on Earth. Others are saying it couldn't have happened period. Some physicists are saying that the universe is itself intelligent and alive. There are many going baffy with the anthropic principle, but they want anything but Genesis 1. Aliens did it, the universe is alive, there must be infinite numbers of universes.. But the Genesis 1 folks are more invisible in the media you read.
There's no contradiction between evolution & Christianity (or many other religions). And plenty of scientists have always known this.
Read Genesis 1. There's no way to fit the "evolutionary tree' into the day-ages semantical tapdance. And to say it's an allegory is also a tap-dance. You can't take what you want like a cafeteria. Now I'll admit there are pagan believers today who call themselves "Christian", like Episcopal "Bishop Sprong", and believers in evolution like Hugh Ross who also call themselves "Christian", and there's no contradiction between evolution and their brand of what they call it.
However, I still call myself a Christian, of the kind that accepts the Bible. There is definitely a gap between x-Darwinism and the Bible.
Author