[donh]

And for all that, we still want a predictive explanation for the morphological flow of the fossils we recover, in chronological order, in the geologic column, and the only serious taker on the table is Darwinian Evolution. No one in this long article here, not Dembski, Johnson, or Behe, is stepping up to the plate, and providing a "disproof"--they have simply made a fuss over the fact that the story is far from complete, and I'll repeat a piece of statistical advice I offered earlier: if you don't know how a thing happened, you haven't the slightest idea how to calculate the odds against it.

[Phaedrus]

. . .they have simply made a fuss over the fact that the story is far from complete . . .

Wrong, donh. You are mischaracterizing.

For your edification, here's how science works:
1) Someone comes up with a theory; Darwin, for example.
2) The evidence is checked.
3) If the evidence doesn't support, or contradicts, the theory dies.
4) The evidence has been found to be overwhelmingly opposed to Darwinism.

Therefore, Darwinism is dead.

And it would be helpful if you reread Gilder's article since that is what it establishes in far more depth.

[gore3000]

we still want a predictive explanation for the morphological flow of the fossils we recover,

There is no flow. Certain characteristics appear, dissappear and reappear a hundred million years later. Feathers are an example, the whale is a complete mystery, so is the platypus, so is the bat. Nothing in nature gives proof against the theory that God did it, in fact there is ample proof for it as I show above and even more if you wish.

[AndrewC]

And for all that, we still want a predictive explanation for the morphological flow of the fossils we recover, in chronological order, in the geologic column, and the only serious taker on the table is Darwinian Evolution. No one in this long article here, not Dembski, Johnson, or Behe, is stepping up to the plate, and providing a "disproof"--they have simply made a fuss over the fact that the story is far from complete, and I'll repeat a piece of statistical advice I offered earlier: if you don't know how a thing happened, you haven't the slightest idea how to calculate the odds against it.

1/256⁵⁹⁸ randomly