Replies

"Darwin's vanity led him to trump Wallace and his credentials allowed it."

It wasn't his vanity, it was the fact that he had formulated natural selection a few decades before Wallace, and the fact that his version was better than Wallace's. Wallace didn't consider competition among the individuals of a species; Darwin did.

The argument continues. And, the results indicated in the original article seem to be a bit shy of proving anything. It's like discovering that a 1 inch No. 8 bolt and a 2 inch No. 8 bolt both fit them same nut. The trouble with Darwin is that it requires magic to make things work. Life magically starts in some part of the world, and then certain changes magically take place to make it successively more complex until we have a specie that can contemplate and partially understand the process. How much more natural is it to believe that intelligence drove the process instead of magic. But (some) scientists proclaim that magic is more "scientific" than intelligence. The thing created decides that it has no use for the creator and proclaims that there is no creator. Yet the thing created still exists, and by that fact demonstrates the existence of the creator.