“Why choose Darwin as the whipping boy for science? Better to choose Marie Curie or Newton or Nobel or even Einstein.”
Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. We cannot observe them directly. Science also has NO TRUE predictive power when it comes to history. Sure, claims are made about what science will supposedly discover about various historical clues, but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.
Darwinism also mixes real science with speculation that is not testable or falsifiable, like the idea that there could be a universal common ancestor. That idea does not represent a law or theory, just a historical event. And without a time machine, there is no way to test it, and nothing could ever disprove it. So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.
The dreaded triple post!
>>Because Darwinian theory is primarily about interpreting history. Science is much more limited in explanatory power when it comes to history because, without a time machine, we simply cannot know all of the facts. <<
Like those interpretive sciences cosmology, geology and astronomy. They offer nothing but speculation and no science upon which we can rely.
Even worse is that demon science quantum physics — not only can you not rely on what has happened, you can’t rely on what WILL happen!
Yeah, you got me.
>>but this is very different from being able to predict outcomes of controlled experimentation.<<
Tell that to viruses, antibiotic resistance and pest resistance.
>>So the speculation of a universal common ancestor is not science.<<
Yes, because the physical universe operates differently in THAT ONE ASPECT.
Science: learn it, live it, love it. Don’t ape it/