Laplace denied the existence of the Creator. I find him to be horrifically "wrong" on that score. A wrongness compounded by his evident belief that he could "hoist himself up" onto the divine seat, if he could only know enough. In other words, that he could substitute himself for God, to be "as-God" or even "a god" himself.
But no man can "know everything." Finite man only knows those things that he can see from where he stands. Men are not, nor can they be, omniscient.
That is reserved to God alone — Who Laplace categorically denies.
I agree, dear TXnMA, that Heisenberg did not prove classical mechanics was "false." He only showed that it "breaks down" in the quantum world. Still, his colleague Bohr insisted that all descriptions of the quantum world be stated in Newtonian language. Further, Bohr's correspondence principle deals precisely with the relations obtaining between classical and quantum mechanics.
Neither Heisenberg nor Bohr were "dumping on" Newton: They recognized Newtonian physics pertains very well to the world of "normal" experience, to a remarkably high degree of accuracy.
That was exactly my point about evolution. Mutation, Natural Selection. Evolution no doubt occur and can explain many observations in Nature. But some scientists like Dwarkin claim that it is the last word in explaining life in the universe. And those in the media asking politicians if they believe in it make it an either or. Either you believe it is the last word, or your an anti-science bible beating moron. It's as if believing in motion makes you a determinist.