[inquest]

What you're saying is that the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of the heliocentric solar system can't overthrow the observed FACT that the solar system is heliocentric. I completely agree, and that's precisely why I brought it up. For exactly the same reason, the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of evolution can't overthrow the observed FACT that life on Earth has evolved.

I still have to wonder if you're comparing apples to apples. You seem to be saying that the theory of the heliocentric system is incomplete - that is, that there's something more to the mix than what the current theory describes. Are you saying the same thing about the theory of evolution, that there's apparently something more to evolution than modification by natural selection?

[Physicist]

You seem to be saying that the theory of the heliocentric system is incomplete - that is, that there's something more to the mix than what the current theory describes.

I don't believe it is incomplete, in the sense that I don't believe there is more at work than the known forces. What I'm saying is that our understanding of how those forces interoperate to produce the solar system we see is incomplete. But just because there are aspects of planetary motion we can't readily explain, it doesn't mean that there's anything more at work than gravity.

Are you saying the same thing about the theory of evolution, that there's apparently something more to evolution than modification by natural selection?

I don't believe that evolution is incomplete, in that I don't believe there is more at work in the origin of species than natural variation plus natural selection. What I'm saying is that our understanding of how those factors have interoperated to produce the species we see is incomplete. But just because there are aspects of biology we can't readily explain, it doesn't mean that there's anything more at work than Darwinism.