[AndrewC]

What is non-scientific about it (or non-Darwinian as you call it)?

Why should I posit an answer? Your reply exquisitely demonstrates my exact point in my post 433

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

I believe that you were the one that implied that anything non-Darwinian was not science. All I meant was that I see nothing unscientific or non-Darwinian in the two quotes. Like I said, we've been looking at this in my workplace for two decades. It's old news.

(I caught your Darwininian pun by the way. Very clever.)

[Junior]

You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science.

Not really. As long as a theory is testable and falsifiable it has a shot. What have you got?