I have collected my share of insults for the week.
There were no insults to you, just statements of theory, facts and evidence.
This is typical ploy. Debate for a while and then falsely complain about the treatment you received.
What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE.
What you believe is irrelevant. Try dealing in facts from time to time. Or as you say:
I apologize for wasting your time. But you do wax personally offensive, for example:
I understand your frustrations
Who are you to judge and make assumptions about the emotions of others? Hmmmm? Why don't you stick to the facts and leave the emotions of others out of it? Because you would lose the debate, Hmmmmm?
not scholarly but jocular
You have a lousy sense of humor then. The "jocularity" wasn't evident. Perhaps at your advanced age, you could take a class.
When encountering those whose approach to evolution is purely materialistic
The TOE can only be materialistic, by definition, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Non-materialist science is a contradiction in terms. All evidence is natural, materialistic (if that includes energy as part of "materialism" - the flaw in the criticism) or it isn't evidence. There is nothing you can do to get around this point.
Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design.
There is no such thing as the "science" of something that is "denial." Denial is a negative assertion and science is only concerned with the positive evidence of something. This statement is irrational.
TOE in the minds of many permitted materialism to become the only truth. But that materialism is the truth is not provable. Marterialism is, then, merely a proposition of belief, and, as such, constitutes a religion just as a non-denominational church is a religion. What materialist TOE activists insist upon is establishment of their religion in the public schools to the exclusion of all other belief systems.
A projection of TOE into an affirmation of materialism as the total truth was evidenced by Darwin himself, who was a eugenist. He advocated, among other things, enforced sterilization of homo sapiens who did not evidence advancements he and his eugenist associates deemed acceptable.
If you want to discard a scientific theory because someone might misapply it, you'd better discard all of science.
That is not what I asserted. I said that adoption of materialism as a consequence of assuming that TOE explains more than it does, e.g., the origin(s) of life, resulted in great evils. I have stated this as implicit to my point consistently, as evidenced by all the valid criticisms of my argument (many here have repeatedly pointed out that TOE does not address origins of life). I have endeavored to clarify my position, to frame it properly for discussion.
Origin of Species in 1859 was merely a component of the influences that had been building towards the "triumph" of atheistic materialism with Marx. Kant, Hegel, and Comte built the dialectical materialism mechanism that Darwin's Origin of Species triggered into the cruel realities of the USSR (perhaps 30 million intentionally murdered or starved - under the approvingly watchful eye of on-the-scene Walter Duranty and the New York Times), Red China (still unfolding, but likely more than 40 million killed in the name of atheistic humanism, with the doting approval of Jean-Paul Sartre). Lacking moral constraints, purely humanistic moral relativism resulted in history's greatest suffering, greater than any inflicted upon human beings by any religion, especially when considering the span of time in which the monumental murders of (secular humanist) communism occurred.
Of course, the ultimate application of Darwinism divorced from traditional moral considerations was Nietsche, (even before he went insane). Part of his legacy was most obviously Hitler and Nazism (about 10 million civilian murders). The concepts of purity of racial stock and the development of a race of supermen were merely the purest manifestation of unconstrained materialism that gained its confidence in large part from Darwinism.
Therefore, it is not the assertion that mutation and natural selection across millions of years are the basic mechanisms of speciation to which I object. When those mechanisms are asserted implicitly as indisputable proof of an entire philosophical system, especially with suppression of the genuine weaknesses of TOE to prevent questioning of that philosophical system (not of TOE!), THAT is what I find objectionable.