How is that a gross generalization? Looks pretty specific to me.
and from that the conclusion that: "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory,
You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"
Indeed. What I don't understand is your willingness to accept the inverse in the case of evolution, when it is no less illogical to do so.
I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?
A single instance of someone using the TToE as a "weapon against religion" does not justify characterizing it as being "first and foremost" for that purpose.
True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?
The entire field of biology? That sounds pretty sweeping to me.
You are twisting and distorting again. That statement has no direct connection to the first statement - it happens nine paragraphs after the first statement. NOTE: I am in no way trying to support the statement "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory"
When I asked what evidence the author of the article presented in support of this statement, you replied that he provided a quote from a well-known evolutionist. Is this not the quote to which you were referring? If it has no connection, how is it to be taken as evidence?
I have done no such thing - you do know if you present a claim with zero supporting evidence, it is considered an empty accusation?
You seem to take issue with my questioning the basis upon which this statement was made. I took this to mean that you agreed with it. Is that not the case? If not why the argument over it?
True, but I never mentioned anything about "first and foremost" - what are you talking about?
This is from the article, which is supposedly the topic of discussion.