Okay.
So from
this post, Note the red. I hope you can see my problem.
I don't have a problem with inference. We do that all the time. It's part of life, since we need to reason. I use it, and I am sure you do too.
Don't tell me though, it's okay for someone to use it, as long as they have the title "scientist", but otherwise it's a no no.
I posted this before, but I can't remember where, so I'll put it here again.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.
inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so
they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them.
Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example,
scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
So this is probably the reason you thought I had a problem with inference, because I said
However, note - I added this
In other words, why are "knowledgeable people" making so much fuss over a theory that requires inference from bottom to top, or top to bottom - whichever way you look at it, when others have enough evidence to infer a supernatural intelligent being - a creator.
Of course, it's not a debatable issue for naturalist to consider, since they depend solely on what they consider to be natural - Interesting (see my last post) - not supernatural.
One thing though, and I want to include @QuestioningMind in this, since I was to get back to him.
I see mechanisms for testing implemented for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and observations being considered, but for whale evolution, they are simply using fossils of different animals to conclude that one evolved to the other.
That's all.
Hope it's clear. 
