[tacticalogic]

We wouldn't use Newtonian science to show the origin of gravity, any more than we would use Darwin's ToE to show the origin of life. Neither is an "origin theory."

Whether it actually is an "origin theory" or not seems irrelevant.

The standard seems to be that if a theory can be misunderstood by anyone to address things it does not, it is allowable to consider that the fault of the author, and perceived faults of the author can be held to be admissible as faults of the theory.

The theory will be judged not by what it actually addresses, but by who can shout the loudest for or against it.

[betty boop]

The standard seems to be that if a theory can be misunderstood by anyone to address things it does not, it is allowable to consider that the fault of the author, and perceived faults of the author can be held to be admissible as faults of the theory.

I can't blame Darwin for Julian Huxley or Ernst Haeckel....

BTW, I think a theory ought to be judged by how well it addresses its subject matter. Who's yelling the loudest, whether pro or con, is irrelevant. Or ought to be.

[Alamo-Girl]

The standard seems to be that if a theory can be misunderstood by anyone to address things it does not, it is allowable to consider that the fault of the author, and perceived faults of the author can be held to be admissible as faults of the theory.

Whoa. Who ever made the underlined claim?