re: #1050 Charles

Where in anyone you like’s name do you see my argument as a creationist argument? Stop looking for creationists around every rock. I am no creationist. Creationism is not science. In fact, as far as I can tell, it is not even a theory. It is more like an anti-theory, saying we have problems with that Darwin guy BECAUSE we know God did it.

What I am saying is that Darwin’s argument is wholly adequate with respect to some species (cods and pine in Stove’s memorable phrase), not really adequate for others (hymenoptera are an example of that, as the sociobiologists recognize but don’t quite fix correctly), and really off-base for man. I gave you examples. Examples are evidence. Feel free to disagree, but don’t give me bull that it isn’t evidence.

As for the inadequacy of Darwinian theory, don’t sweat it. Relativity is wrong too, yet it remains the best understanding we have yet of applicable phenomena. (It is wrong because its premise has already been made false — information can travel faster than light through quantum tunneling and entanglement). So does Darwin, for a lot of stuff. FOr others, not so much.