Replies

It is not obfuscation to reject the premise of the question.

What is “Darwinism”? Is there also “Newtonism” or “Mendelism”?

Sorry if I don't play your silly game the way you want it played, (strike three? really? grow up!) but I reject the ignorant premise of the question.

But if you asked me if I KNEW the Bohr model of the atom was correct - as a scientist I could only tell you that it is a USEFUL model that helps to explain and predict facts. Currently it is the most useful and predictive model. If I said I KNEW it was correct, that would be to betray the scientific principle that theories are provisional based upon the evidence. If new evidence came in, and a new theory derived that was more useful and predictive - I would abandon the Bohr model of the atom.

Similarly, the theory of natural selection of genetic variation is the most useful and predictive model for explaining and predicting facts about the history (and future) of living things on Earth.

Meanwhile creationism is useless.

Now cry some more about how I am not playing fair! It amuses me!

Again (5th try) you attempt to obfuscate and will not clearly answer the question. Let us examine your response.

Knowing very well what Darwinism is, you lay claim that you do not.

Then, plying scientific political correctness you attempt some misdirection with reference to "Newtonism" and "Mendelism".

Then you reference my question as 'ignorant'...a simple yes or no would have done nicely.

Then you tell me to grow up at my age of 61 years.

You reference my quesiton as a 'game', when it is only a question.

Then you ask yourself several questions, for which you are willing to offer up an answer.

The obligatory invective about creationism, about which you seem assertive and veridical.

Then you recommend lacrimation, to what end I do not know.

But you still refuse to answer my simple, unambiguous question.I will not ask again. Anyone,....I mean anyone,....scientist or layman who reads our conversation can clearly see that you are afraid to address this simple, crystalline question. That is answer enough. Your fidelity to proclaimation of Darwinism as truth has been shown as whored and not something which offers faithfulness to your own acclaimations. You would like to answer my question in the affirmative, but you know you simply cannot do that. So you will continue to insult those who disagree with you as having a Weltanschaung different from yours, even as they are seeking answers, just like you are seeking answers to your questions.

Well, good luck to you and yours. Hope you have a nice Christmas.