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.
Parsing ...
Changing the genetic code sufficiently, so that one species transforms into another is not a one step process.
Over long spans of time, species retain their genetic integrity. They resist change. Transformation is not only not the rule, it has not been shown at all.
As for what processes do occur and the mechanics of them, they are known and a long while back I studied them.
I think it's fair to say that these need to be specified, and in plain language.
Your statement indicates you are not familiar with molecular biology and the mechanics of genetics. If you were, you would not have said that.
You must realize that this is an appeal to authority, an approach that I reject. Again, please state the case in plain language. The physicists do it all the time.
These are not suppositions, they are fact.
Saying so doesn't make them so. With suitable irony, I say they are suppositions.
Also, just because something is not known and/or well understood, does ["not", I presume] detract from what is known and understood.
Now I agree with this. Science is, however, about what is known and how it is known. Any conversation about what is not known falls outside the boundaries of science and circumscribes what science can legitimately claim.
You are making the usual false evolutionist claim that because science knows something, it supports evolution. This is not the case here. Genetics has in fact taught us that it is very hard for a new mutation to spread throughout a species. In fact, unless it has a very high selective advantage it will never do that. The problem that DNA has created for evolution is that because a mutation affecting only one bit pair of DNA would necessarily not achieve much, it would provide only a very small selective advantage and instead of spreading throughout the species to provide a likelihood of further gradual mutations accomplishing a large change, it would most likely dissappear from the individuals that had it and thus provide no basis for further gradual change.