Replies

..."Now one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal."

VS.

[ Evolutionary Theory ] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that Self-Evident axiom some of it's more aggressive advocates would have us believe.

Michael Denton-

So, what's going on here? He still can't explain HOW life came about. If Ernst Mayr is the "end all" of neo-Darwinism, how can his version of Darwin's theory be so weak as to not withstand basic scrutiny? HIS theory is pure "philosophy", and based on Junk Science.

[ Evolutionary Theory ] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support

ROFL!!! Only if you close your eyes real tight and pretend not to see the *mountains* of evidence which provides overwhelming support for evolutionary biology... Where do the anti-evolutionists *get* these folks?

So, what's going on here?

An anti-evolutionist is misrepresenting the state of the science, that's what's going on.

He still can't explain HOW life came about.

Claiming to read minds of the dead now? Fascinating.

If Ernst Mayr is the "end all" of neo-Darwinism, how can his version of Darwin's theory be so weak as to not withstand basic scrutiny?

It can and does withstand scrutiny. What are you trying to say here?

HIS theory is pure "philosophy", and based on Junk Science.

ROFL!!! Okay, you keep believing that, while the rest of the world keeps doing research, which to date has overwhelmingly confirmed evolution.

But just for giggles, feel free to give some specific examples, in detail, of the "junk science" you mistakenly believe evolutionary biology is "based on"...

Let's test whether you really have any idea what you're talking about, or whether you've made the mistake of reading creationist sources -- and believing them. Note: Trying to "learn" about science from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism by watching Michael Moore movies.

Something for all to think about before you defend your theories to much.

...but those who uphold it dogmatically [a system] . . . are adopting the very reverse of that critical attitude which in my view is the proper one for the scientist. In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; . . . If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.

Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
"Evolution", "ID" or "Creationism" is never mentioned.

So, what's going on here? He still can't explain HOW life came about. If Ernst Mayr is the "end all" of neo-Darwinism, how can his version of Darwin's theory be so weak as to not withstand basic scrutiny? HIS theory is pure "philosophy", and based on Junk Science.

Whoops! WRONG!! Evolution does not address origins. That is a different theory.