That sounds a lot like your assertion: Darwinism isn't about truth, and truth is a word best avoided entirely in Darwinism. On this point you are in full agreement with many non-Darwinians here. Why complain about it?
Science is not about TRUTH - Coyoteman
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] - Coyoteman Cut & Paste
You quoted me as saying:
Let me get your argument straight... Darwin's theory of evolution... is hogwash.
When my original post was:
[Marx] can justly be compared with contemporaries like Faraday, Darwin, and Pasteur, who are still influencing our lives and thoughts, because their ideas were important not only for their own time, but for many generations to come. These men applied scientific method to new fields. So did Marx -- J.B.S Haldane.Let me get your argument straight. Because Darwin's ideas are still influencing our lives and thoughts, as are Faraday's, Pasters', and Marx's, that is proof that Darwin's theory of evolution, as modified by 150 years of scientific advances by tens of thousands of scientists, is hogwash.
Is that what you were trying to peddle?
Pretty dishonest.
Then you misquote me again on the roll of truth in science. Here is a definition from my FR homepage:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.A little different from what you are claiming I said, eh?