Your point is valid only in general application
Yep. That was my point. Thanks again.
and Dr Shapiro's article was an opinion article in "Boston Review", not a paper in "Nature".
Immaterial. You're just objecting to save face.
Nevertheless, your prancing about in search of some demeaning vulnerability is a perfect example of "Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth."
Me? I'm "prancing"? -- Infantile comment my boyo.
You're ticked cause you got caught hyping the issue. Learn to control yourself.
You're a mind reader too? I'm not ticked at all. I'm practically laughing a body part off. Your prancing around your irrelevant point is a sight to behold. First, I merely cited Dr. Shapiro in answer to the assertion that "but the description you provided is essentially the same as evolution in its particulars.". I also noted quite plainly, that "This is what Dr. Shapiro, in part, had to say concerning Darwinians". Your "great" </sarcasm> discovery that opinion sometimes involves hyperbole seems to have you hallucinating. I answered you plainly, "For these particular scientists described in this article, yes absolutely". Yes it was hyperbole.Go ahead and continue prancing about. You provide humorous relief. And provide ample evidence that " they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science".