Replies

Okay, I see. A theory doesn't have to explain "how" as long as it's not the theory of evolution, which must be held to a higher standard than other scientific theories because it offends your sensibilities, regardless of the fact that real scientists (not scientific groupies) have accepted the methodology used in evolution as entirely scientific. Basically, what you are saying is that you are the final arbiter of what is, and is not, science. It must be rough. Not only are you an expert on who can and cannot be a Christian, but you are also the foremost authority on science.

Not only are you [gore3000] an expert on who can and cannot be a Christian, but you are also the foremost authority on science.

Yes, clearly gore3000 -- who assured us in the message you responded to that Darwin was "a charlatan [who] did not know beans about biology" -- surpasses even the world's oldest and most prestigious professional scientific society in his authority. Sadly gore3000's guidance was not available when The Royal Society of London awarded Darwin its Royal Medal for Natural Science in 1853 (well before his evolutionary views were known) in recognition of his comprehensive series of monographs on the systematics, anatomy and physiology Cirripedia (Barnacles). I.e.:

DARWIN, Ch. (1851): A monograph of the fossil Lepadidae: or, pedunculated cirripeds of Great Britain.

DARWIN, Ch. (1851): A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Lepadidae: or pedunculated cirripeds.

DARWIN, Ch. (1854): A monograph of the fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain.

DARWIN, Ch. (1854): A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Balanidae (or sessile cirripedes), the Verrucidae etc.

On the other hand Darwin continues to be frequently cited by modern cirripedists, and his monographs are still found in biological libraries due to this continuing currency, so I suppose it is not to late for gore3000 to inform these scientists and librarians of their error!