What is Science?

[Ron Dean]

Science is supposed to be rational, neutral and noncommittal, going
to wherever the evidence leads. But it doesn't seem to describe evolution
theory. Darwin's theory predicted countless finely graduated intermediates
between ancestor an descendant.
However, Darwin was acutely aware that transitional fossils were
absent in lower strata of species. However, he believed that
Insufficient searching the earth's strata is the explanation for the
failure, but he expected that future serches would find these
missing fossil and fill the gaps. Transitional fossil are supposed be
intermediates between ancestral and later decendent species.
The primary purpose of evolution is to explain origin of species,
which are predicted to exist, But where there are expected there are gaps. In
this case it's evolution that occupies the gaps.

So, searching to locate these intermediates has become the primary
objective and goal of researchers. But when contrary facts are seen
these are said ti be no data. So, is this really science? The question is
when an isolated "intermediate" is Discovered, how is one to know that
this discovery is not just the "best in the field"?