[Coyoteman]

When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn.

Checkmate.

As I thought. No specific scientific objections to the theory of evolution.

Care to try again? I suggest you try science this time, not religious fundamentalism.

Or, be brave and admit where your arguments are really coming from.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Ooops! They didn't cover that in the science courses at your college, did they?

It's a pretty common syndrome among liberal secular humanists not to realize the cognitive distortions of "scientism" and the mechanistic model of reality. The fossil record yields no conclusions regarding a Creatio ex nihilo so science cannot resolve the fundamental issue empirically or in imaginative theoretical models.

Truthfully, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my jeering post. Quite a few of the most ardent Darwinists of the liberal secular humanist type are sexually maladjusted and suffer from a pathological resentment of Christianity and Christians. It comes out in their irrational and emotionalist tantrums to impose the ideology (which is after all a political matter rather than scientific one).