[Texas Songwriter]

Again you obfuscate, you silver-tongued devil. You know better than most that the serious literature on the subject of Darwinism is volumnous and considerable. The skirt of alledged scientific bigotry and political correct arrogance should not be necessary to hide behind by someone of your level of knowlege. I have read many of your posts and you are a seemingly smart fellow. Taunting others with scientific offialisms and bigotry only exposes your pretensions. I am not impressed nor intimidated.

So... I put to you a clear, simple question...

Do you know that Darwinism is responsible for the history of life which developed on this planet?

This is the third try at this. I know you can do this!

[allmendream]

It is not obfuscation to reject the premise of the question.

What is “Darwinism”? Is there also “Newtonism” or “Mendelism”?

Sorry if I don't play your silly game the way you want it played, (strike three? really? grow up!) but I reject the ignorant premise of the question.

But if you asked me if I KNEW the Bohr model of the atom was correct - as a scientist I could only tell you that it is a USEFUL model that helps to explain and predict facts. Currently it is the most useful and predictive model. If I said I KNEW it was correct, that would be to betray the scientific principle that theories are provisional based upon the evidence. If new evidence came in, and a new theory derived that was more useful and predictive - I would abandon the Bohr model of the atom.

Similarly, the theory of natural selection of genetic variation is the most useful and predictive model for explaining and predicting facts about the history (and future) of living things on Earth.

Meanwhile creationism is useless.

Now cry some more about how I am not playing fair! It amuses me!

[Tublecane]

You don’t seem to realize your very question is obfuscatory. There is a massive literature of Darwinism, most of it non-scientific. There’s Darwinism at large, then there’s the science of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology has a sense of the grand sweep of life, but it does not KNOW that “Darwinism” is the true story of the development if life on this planet. It doesn’t know because there’s no experiment to run to prove it.

By demonstrating that they don’t know you have wounded non-scientific Darwinism. But you haven’t at all touched the actual science of evolution, because evolutionary biologists—who may or may not be thoroughgoing extra-scientific Darwinists—never thought they had proved it. They are perfectly happy to go on doing what they had been doing, which was not to prove how life began, nor to document how every single species ever came into being, though they have a pretty good idea.