Actually my scientific knowledge is extensive and thorough, despite your bland claims to the contrary.
Mendel and Darwin were not the founders of the scientific revolution, you ahistorical hick.
I'm referring, of course, to the likes of Newton, Hooke, Kelvin, Linnaeus. Not that I expect you to have heard of them.
I realize that Darwisinistas think any bloviating statement they make to advance their cause is ipso facto science, but I must insist on using a more traditional standard; in other words, things are not true just because you state them or wish them to be so. I know, I know, there I go with the mysticism again...
Fine, whatever you say. However, I think you'd find an awful lot of biologists who would disagree with you.
Actually my scientific knowledge is extensive and thorough, despite your bland claims to the contrary.
Your posts here provide no evidence of this, but IDers aren't big on evidence, as I recall.
When Newton couldn't explain certain phenomena, he at least was careful to say that although some higher power could be doing it, he's not going to make that part of his scientific theory. He refused to even conjecture for his scientific papers.