>>Rather than see the amazing design of the world, the Darwinian is forced to the absurd position of personifying “Evolution.” Evolution intended this and that. And yet this rings hollow when you read of the genius of child development Gopnik ably describes.<<
That is, as I said, specious. It is incorrect on so many levels that it is almost impossible to address them all.
Suffice it to say that seeing the wonder of a child is indeed, possible for those who understand science. The statement just shows the inability of the person to see beyond simple talking points.
No, what is specious are the statements made by the Darwinists. Your argument is specious, because you admit that the Darwinist's statement was silly in your post 29. The simple statement you assert is specious assails the statements made by Gopnik which is exactly what you have done.
And your statement implying that one must understand science to see the wonder of children is completely laughable.