Evolution has "flaws" because all theories have flaws?

I'm sensing a flaw in this theory.

It's self-defeating.

Either the "all theories have flaws" theory has a flaw, in which case there could be a theory without flaws, or the theory itself has no flaws, in which case it (the theory that all theories have flaws) exists as a counter-example to itself. In which case it collapses completely.

More seriously, if you want to say there are flaws in evolution, you are more than welcome to say what exactly these theories are. Otherwise, you are just mumbling trite nonsense.

Evolution is a mathematical necessity. People who argue that it has "flaws" are usually arguing against some caricature of evolution or some conclusions that are unwarranted. (On PZ Myers' blog, the favorite fallacies include "Why are there pygmies and dwarves?")

Mind you, when I say that evolution is without flaws, I am not saying that it is "perfect" either. Words like "perfect" and "flawed" are not very rigorous, and don't have much of a fit in actual science. And part of the reason scientists find the discussion of "flaws" to be distasteful is that usually the so-called "flaws" are merely gaps in the knowledge and do not constitute "flaws" at all.

The theory of evolution is not a complete explanation for everything that ever happened. Any explanation is not going to be "complete". We cannot condense all of the information of everything that has ever happened in existence to a single theory. But evolution serves remarkably well in describe how populations of living creatures change over time in response to the stimuli of their environment. There simply is no other theory that does this.

Finally, we need to be honest as to what the real origin is of the anti-evolution crowd. It is not a concern that scientists are not doing their job well enough, and that we somehow need the intervention of laypeople to fix our mistakes. Rather, it is the dissonance between the evidence-based thinking of science, which requires constant questioning, and faith-based thinking, which requires some beliefs to be adhered to even when evidence suggests their weakness. It is also borne of the religious belief that humans are intrinsically superior to other species and have domain over Earth. It is difficult to feel ontological superiority when humans and other species are cousins, so to speak.

You'll have to do better than point out that a scientist can be a racist.

James Watson has a lot of opinions that are not scientifically validated. He is free to feel that way, but let's not pretend that if he says something, that his opinion is necessarily scientific.

It may simply be evidence of his dotage.

How come Dawn Johnsen "needs 60 votes" or else she'll be rejected?

Pretty much the first thing Harry Reid did when the Democrats took control of the Senate was make a deal with the Republicans under which he would never even consider bringing up a bill if they said they would filibuster it.

The next time he tries to break a filibuster threat will be the first. He is pretty much the prototype of a weak leader.

It's a media war. And yes, there are people in the media, in positions at most of the major institutions, who will pass on uncritically whatever Cheney wants them to.

What we are witnessing know is Cheney's Battle of the Bulge. At some point, I'm sure, he or somebody close to him told Pelosi and Reid that, if there were ever investigations, the Cheneyites would do whatever they could to bring down the Democratic leadership with them.

Mind you, the momentum for any investigation is decidedly not originating with Congress. Nor is it coming from Obama, who personally doesn't really care too much either way. (Let's remember that the torture memos were only released because Obama was legally required to release them. It's not like he had a choice.)

The momentum for investigation is coming from outside the Beltway. And really, it's ultimately not going to matter too much if Cheney's operatives continue to smear Pelosi or any other Democrat. A lot of us don't care for the Democratic leadership - but not for the reason that is often inferred by pundits. We are annoyed because they have had a history of letting Bush and Cheney walk all over them. And no, it comes as no news to us that Pelosi didn't do anything about torture in the past five years. We've known for four-five years that the Bush administration was torturing. We've also known that Pelosi has never thought this was worth investigating, even though many of us thought at the time that it was a crime that rose to the level of impeachment.