[ketsu]

That was not the opinion of Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Washington, and many, many others whose accomplishments dwarf those of Darwin.

You're confusing philosophy of science with science. Science fundamentally and necessarily requires naturalism to work(i.e. that you can prove or disprove things empirically and only empirically). While their philosophies were certainly different(as was Darwin's BTW) their *methods* were exactly the same.

[Westbrook]

> You’re confusing philosophy of science with science.

Sir, I perceive that it is you that is confusing philosophy of science with science.

Consider the absurdity of a shrew becoming a bat or a dinosaur becoming a bird. Punctuated Equilibrium and Hopeful Monster theories had to emerge in order to address the utter unsurvivability of any of the obviously absurd “intermediate” life forms.

These theories are little more than stories in support of a philosophy of science, that being evolutionism.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Science fundamentally and necessarily requires naturalism to work(i.e. that you can prove or disprove things empirically and only empirically).

Naturalism = HETEROSEXUALITY

Let's try the question professor...