[Abin Sur]

I think it pretty clear that we have only an inkling of what the whole universe is like. Relatively speaking, not that much more than what Ptolemy did.

Compare our current knowledge of the nature of (for example) the Solar System to that of Ptolemy's. Are you seriously arguing that we only know a bit more than he did about this subject?

As for falsifrication, the problem with evolution theory is that beginning with Darwin himself, it has been adopted as a kind of “theory of Everything.” It certainly can’t handle the basic question: how does intelligence look at itself?

Since that question has nothing to do with the TOE, why should it?

[RobbyS]

One has to distinguish between Darwin's theory--which was that of a trained naturalist based on his detailed observations and "natural selection"that was immediately applied to every aspect of human life. One does not realize how faddish evolution became immediately until one looks at the literature of the day.If one could google in the time, the number of hits under "evolution" would have increased enormously between 1860 and 1870. Social Darwinism, of course, owed almost nothing to Darwin, but people thought it did so it had great influence for twenty years or so. People seem to think that being told that they were nothing more than "enlightened' brutes was liberating. Huxley himself was nonplused by the evident corruption of morals owing to the diminution of the Victorian morality, which was owed so much to evangelical and the Liberal Christian (called Gnostics BTW) beliefs among the middle classes. Freud invented the term "superego" to refer to this God substitute. One cannot blame Darwin or even the Darwinist for the likes of Hitler and Lenin, but they were the products of the Zeitgeist in which a half-understood Darwinism was common currency. Ironically, the best guides are Nietzsche and Kierkegaard each with his own startlingly clear insights.