[Aquinasfan]

Because, as I've said before, who is better qualified to criticially examine the flaws of a biological theory than a lawyer?

That argument would have more weight if Darwinism was a theory based strictly on empirical evidence, and not a theory based primarily on materialist presuppositions and speculation.

Some lawyers are adept at understanding arguments and at identifying underlying assumptions. Many biologists are not.

[Dimensio]

That argument would have more weight if Darwinism was a theory based strictly on empirical evidence, and not a theory based primarily on materialist presuppositions and speculation.

Is this tied in with the common (and false) creationist belief that the theory of evolution was written not because of observations made by Darwin but because Darwin wanted to find some 'exuse' to explain life without a Creator?