[donh]

I deny that evolution has a philosophical (or any other kind of) stance. Science, evolutionary or otherwise, is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism: whether darwinian evolutionary theory has meaning or not is outside of science's capacity to inquire.

Ahem. Deny it all you want, but the world is round,

It's not. It's a highly irregularly surfaced, unbalanced oblate spheroid.

not flat. If you need a primer on exactly what philosophical assumptions do indeed underlie 'science' and its 'capacity', I have a lot of links to offer you. First in the list ... no, wait a sec...

Don't bother, if you want to make this point, I'd like references from the vast number of scientists who think science rules out the existence of metaphysical explanations of things--which is what philosophical naturalism, not science, assumes.

[gobucks]

"I'd like references from the vast number of scientists who think science rules out the existence of metaphysical explanations of things--which is what philosophical naturalism, not science, assumes."

?Que? I think I might risk misunderstanding what you mean here; which assumptions to which do you mean?