[AndrewC]

That is, as I said, specious. It is incorrect on so many levels that it is almost impossible to address them all.

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.

[freedumb2003]

You crack me up. I leave your words for the world to see.

Adios.