Your vague-yet-laconic style of discourse contributes little to nothing to the conversation at hand.
You are adding nothing substantive, advancing no falsifiable claims, attempting to explain nothing, but criticizing everything.
Regards,
I believe my observation for your statement, which was:
“They cite it against people who argue that the alleged weaknesses or incompleteness of Darwinism (because it doesn’t purport to explain EVERYTHING) somehow make Creationism more plausible - and against people who argue that Darwinism can’t be true because... “BIBLE!”
Is quite apt. My observation was it is a surrogate theological argument.
Your statement described this dynamic well.
You disagree with my observation? If so why?
As far as laconic, am I supposed to be angry or frantic?