Replies

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.

I read your post 168. Whether it is easier to ask, "Do you know it is true that natural selection and with survival of the fittest is the cause of the history of life on earth?" OR "Do you know it is true that Darwinism is the cause of the history of life on earth?"...is to attempt to make a distinction without a difference. To claim these represent different questions is to attempt to seize upon a scientific snobbery, and a convienient excuse to evade the question. He evaded the question because to answer yes requires his provision of an epistemic response with my next question. The honest answer would be that his certitude does not reach warranted true belief. OK. That would be enough for me. But, it simply would reveal that his sparring with those who are not as "scientifically sofisticated" as he or as adept with debate techniques. So, he creates his diversions and becomes desultory.

It was not my intent to develope an argument based on molecular models, so as to do harm to non-scientific Darwinism is a cannard. It was not my intent to argue the subcellular, molecular, and subatomic aspects of how mutations occur, how so few of those mutations are passed on to progeny. My question's underpinning was philosophical in its presentation. After all, the materialist cannot tell us the makeup of abstract invarient entities. Science, being a slave to philosophy, cannot operate without philosophical presuppositions. AMD knows this, but does not want to address these issues as it applies to his worldview. That is not meant to be a criticism of AMD, it is just how he presents his arguments. It was not my intent to prove or disprove the theory of Darwinism. It was my intent to have AMD simply real the truth that abduction, as it applies to Darwins five criteria proving or disproving his theory, is not possible to assertain. It is, if true, an historical science and as you know historical sciences have their inherent limitations. I fully understand his declaration that 'as a model', he claims it useful to some scientists. But that was not the question, was it?

You may assert that they have a "pretty good idea", but there are those who may think otherwise. So a certitude of "pretty good idea" does not rise to the level of truth. That is all I was asking the man. You seem to be able to answer the question. I seem to be able to answer the question without doing irreparable harm to non-scientific discussions of the topic of what...shall I dare say... Darwinism. I think you understand me. And as you say, AMD does not KNOW it is TRUE. He simply tries to imply it is true with an arrogance and officialism to intimidate others. To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Speak nicely to each other. If not, then the road goes two ways.