4) The evidence has been found to be overwhelmingly opposed to Darwinism.
Therefore, Darwinism is dead.
You haven't the demonstrated credentials to be lecturing on the nature of science. Newtonian mechanics stood up for 200 years despite the fact that every calculation was slightly in error, as revealed by modern tools, and corrected by Einsteinian mechanics. Is Newtonian mechanics dead?
And it would be helpful if you reread Gilder's article since that is what it establishes in far more depth.
It establishes no such thing, and certainly not with any depth. It is a shallow review of a handful of writers on the margin of science who argue, in various ways, that because you don't understand how something happened, it must be impossible. They do not, in any significant manner, gainsay that Darwinian Evolution, however incomplete and flawed, is on the table, and has a track record, that exceeds random luck, of successful predictions and profitable use in industry.
And you have? Truth requires credentials that meet your standards? That's hilarious. In any event, the article is authoritative.
It is a shallow review of a handful of writers on the margin of science . . .
Well, wrong again, donh.
. . . who argue, in various ways, that because you don't understand how something happened, it must be impossible.
Another absolute misrepresentation.
They do not, in any significant manner, gainsay that Darwinian Evolution, however incomplete and flawed, is on the table, and has a track record, that exceeds random luck, of successful predictions and profitable use in industry.
And more garbage. Evidence? None in support, much against. Predictions? Silliness. Profitable in industry? More hilarity.
None of your post is true, donh, however seemingly glib, and I conclude you either crave attention or just like to hear yourself write. In any event, you have a terrible time with truth and your posts are an abuse of JimRob's good graces. They will thus henceforth be ignored.