[Right Wing Professor]

There are five paradigms listed. Evolution is one of the five. In general, a science stands on all its paradigms; that is what paradigms are, after all.

I claimed evolution is the central paradigm; showing it listed as one of five paradigms does not disprove that.

[Notwithstanding]

But the material YOU pointed me to indicates evolution is merely a co-equal paradigm with the others - giving absolutely no indication that is THE CORE paradigm.

And once again, that a paradigm is widely believed does not make it factually or theoretically correct.

The handsdown best watchmakers in the world in 1967 - the Swiss - held the mistaken paradigm that their jeweled mechanical watches would always be the standard in timekeeping. In fact when Swiss engineers invented the quartz watch in 1967,no one bothered to to patent it because they thought it simply a curiosity - and of course the Japanese exploited this new quartz watch and within 10 years the Japanese watch industry overtook the Swiss watch industry.

The earth being flat and the center of the universe was a paradigm that was also hard to let go.

The point is that Evolution is a paradigm that has gotten weaker (scientific discovery has caused more doubts) the more science has tried to strengthen it.

Fools hang on to the paradigm to which they are wedded when it is clear it is no longer valid.

Those so wedded to evolution should take it up as a hobby and write about it as such - instead of pretending and lying about its certainty.

When a child is taught about evolution he is rarely taught that it is a theory that is romantically popular but not all its proponents want it to be.

When you prove it, then it can be considered hard science.

Until then we need to be honest about it being wishful romantic thinking.