[BroJoeK]

betty boop: "It is clear to me that Darwin's theory is more interested in what things "look like" than it is in what things actually are.
If it was interested in the latter, it would have to take questions of origin — of the origin of Life — much more seriously than it does."

Once again, the definition of the word "science" is: natural explanations for natural processes.
So science itself is uninterested in the philosophical question of: "what is, is" except as that question bears on the scientifically valid question of "what works".

[betty boop]

Dear BroJoeK, you wrote: Once again, the definition of the word "science" is: natural explanations for natural processes.

But what if the relevant causes are not "natural" causes?

Your statement utterly rejects this possibility, dismisses it out of hand.

So we shouldn't even "go look and see whether this may not be the case."

Am I getting this right, dear BroJoeK?

Sigh. Sometimes I think Neo-Darwinists are basically just in the "censorship of Nature" business....