Of course. Evolution was invented by a guy named Murphy. We call it Murphy's Law. "Anything that can happen, will happen."
"He observed minor variations within species, assumed without any scientific evidence whatsoever that said variations could cross every taxonomic boundary,"
Minor variations are what drive evolution, just as consumer choice drives economics.
There are no taxonomic boundaries. They are simply convenient demarcations within a broad spectrum of variation.
"... and further assumed without evidence that this had been going on for millions of years,"
The evidence was his own observations, which you have already acknowledged, as well as his understanding of the geological processes of the Earth, which are clearly evident to any honest observer.
"... and further assumed without a shred of evidence that this traced all the way back to a mythical first protocell."
Darwin was not promoting any kind of mythology. He was simply offering an alternative explanation for the variation between life forms that is clearly observable. This alternative explanation is analogous to Copernicus' alternative explanation for planetary orbits, which simplified our conception so radically that it soon became obvious that this clear and simple explanation was the truth.
"In other words, Darwinian evolution is a materialist religion, not science."
In your words, it is. Do you find religion offensive?
If observation, hypothesis, and verified predictions are not science, what is?
” If observation, hypothesis, and verified predictions are not science, what is?”
Now that up there looks a lot like a law too....Bacon’s Law I suspect. I dunno....laws could better explained in my view...
What observable, repeatable evidence did Darwin have for no taxonomic boundaries? What observable, repeatable evidence did Darwin have all life derives from a single common ancestor? Sorry, Darwin was practicing Evo-religion, not science.
PS I have nothing against religion. But I do object to the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism hiding the religious motivations behind their unscientific historical interpretations.
How convenient indeed. That allows evos to claim anything happened.
Of what observation, hypothesis, and verified prediction are the following statements?
"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature""If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
"the fact that instincts are not always absolutely perfect and are liable to mistakes;—that no instinct can be shown to have been produced for the good of other animals, though animals take advantage of the instincts of others;—that the canon in natural history, of "Natura non facit saltum," is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise inexplicable,—all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection."
"My theory agrees with unequal distances between species some fine & some wide which is strange if creator had so created them. — "
"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."
"Did He (God) ordain that crop and tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary, in order that the fancier might make his grotesque pouter and fan-tail breeds? Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary, in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull, for man's brutal sport? But if we give up the principle in one case; if we do not admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally guided in order, for instance, that the greyhound, that perfect image of symmetry and vigor, might be formed; no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike in nature and the results of the same general laws, which have been the groundwork through natural selection of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man included, were intentionally and specially guided. However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray, in his belief 'that variations have been led along certain beneficial lines, as a stream is led along useful lines of irrigation.'"
[The doctrine of everlasting punishment is] "a damnable doctrine"
"As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
[Special creation is] "a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinion"
"no shadow of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations... were intentionally and specially guided."
[With regard to General and Special Revelation] "the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect.... The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us"
"The believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory. "
Cordially,