Exactly. And no one has been able to refute ONE of Darwin's postulates. There is no heir to Darwin in the natural sciences. Einstein's theory of relativity has largely superseded Newton's mechanics but no one has been able to produce an explanation for natural behavior that is as succinct and elegant as Darwin's. It is a theory that has been repeatedly validated by scientific testing and observation. The same can't be said of ID. I don't think the debate is about science but about philosophy. There are different legitimate ways to understand the origin of the world and of life upon it. Darwin doesn't address the question and I deny the premise of dogmatics like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to the effect evolution equates to the falsity of religion. It does no such thing. Yet at the same time its foolhardy to deny the obvious before our senses, that Nature operates in accordance with natural laws that have been in existence long before human beings arrived upon the earth.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Darwin doesn't address the question and I deny the premise of dogmatics like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to the effect evolution equates to the falsity of religion. It does no such thing. Yet at the same time its foolhardy to deny the obvious before our senses, that Nature operates in accordance with natural laws that have been in existence long before human beings arrived upon the earth. Your post eloquently states what I have been trying to touch upon in some of my posts. Thank you. Dawkins comes across as sounding as if his (very impressive) grasp of his field knows no bounds. He sounds like the Alec Baldwin character in that movie "I am God!" simply becuase he had great surgical skill. I wonder how the human shortcoming of hubris will evolve on a social level in the millenia to come?