[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Which is why arguably it is an "incomplete" theory. It tells us nothing about the origin of life or of consciousness; and yet living beings are both alive and in possession of some form of consciousness. Thus living beings are more than just their material or physical basis. Darwinism can't address that "more" in principle.

You say that like it's a flaw in the theory. "Incomplete" is just a scarier word for "limited." The ToE is only trying to explain the physical basis of living beings. That it doesn't try to explain consciousness as well doesn't make its explanation of material bodies wrong, any more than the theory of star formation is wrong if it doesn't explain where the clouds of interstellar gas came from in the first place.

[betty boop]

The ToE is only trying to explain the physical basis of living beings.

What physical basis? Or to put it another way, the physical basis of WHAT???

How can one speak of the physical basis of life (and consciousness) if one's theory does not and cannot even deal with such considerations, for methodological (and ideological) reasons?

Is macroevolution some kind of "physical basis?" Nobody has ever seen "macroevolution" at work. It is as much an unobservable as the "angelic choir in heaven"....