Were this so, the so-called crevo debates here on FR would not exist. As it is, biology textbooks still make much of abiogenesis and Discovery Channel still promotes Evolution with its Apeman glorifications. So Evolutionist disclaimers notwithstanding (that itself is a fairly recent phenomenon), promoters of Evolution do indeed trod on forbidden philosophical territory, and with a vengeance, at least judged by the 20th Century. This alone is a "mortal sin" but it gets worse. Evolution does not even show that one species transforms into another or explain the mechanics of such transformation, and it does not therefore even qualify as science. "Mutation" and "chance" are suppositions, not explanations, and neither is supported by the evidence. From day one, Evolution has been an exercise in rhetoric only, as laid out in exquisite detail by Gertrude Himmerfarb in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (written in 1959 but still avialable at Amazon.com in paperback).
The debate should have ended. So the relevant question to me is: "Why has Darwinism not long since gone the way of the Dodo?" And the answer that constantly springs to my mind is that Darwinism still represents the last best hope for a science-based counterforce to Christianity. This "answer" is supported by the constant Creationist-bashing committed by the Evolutionists on the "crevo" threads.
Until biology struggles into the 20th Century by abandoning Materialism and Reductionism, Darwinism will require continued refutation. The physicists have stepped back (to say the least!) from these modes of thought. Will the biologists begin to listen to the physicists?
Changing the genetic code sufficiently, so that one species transforms into another is not a one step process. As for what processes do occur and the mechanics of them, they are known and a long while back I studied them. Your statement indicates you are not familiar with molecular biology and the mechanics of genetics. If you were, you would not have said that. These are not suppositions, they are fact. Also, just because something is not known and/or well understood, does detract from what is known and understood.
"Darwinism still represents the last best hope for a science-based counterforce to Christianity."
Evolution is a subpart of biology, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a counterforce to Christianity whatsoever. In as much as it is the truth, it tells us about one small defined part of existence. If someone uses it as part of a con, that does change its original nature.
"Until biology struggles into the 20th Century by abandoning Materialism and Reductionism, Darwinism will require continued refutation. The physicists have stepped back (to say the least!) from these modes of thought. Will the biologists begin to listen to the physicists?"
Biology doesn't contain the things you say it does. The fact that there are people that construct corruptions of other things does not mean that what was used to form the corruption is now corrupt. I haven't noticed a slowing in attempts to corrupt things.
Don't hold your breath, Phaedrus. They'd have to dump quasi-religious social indoctrination and get back to doing science. Some of them don't even seem capable, let alone willing, of making such a transition.
I'm in such a cheerful mood today! Thank you for your brilliant post.