I’m an atheist.

Hooray, I guess? ;)

Oh, sorry, I don’t mean the trivial version of atheism, like that. I mean solid atheism, a disbelief, rather than a lack of belief.

..trivial? First “honest” atheism, and now weak atheism is “trivial”? *shakes fist*

I’m talking about strong atheism.

Which is a silly position. Positively affirming a negative. :S

There were a few very bright lights who forged ahead, but they were far outside the mainstream of intellectual thought.

There’s a difference between arguing that the ideas were novel, and that they were widespread. We seem to be saying different things here? I’m saying that Darwin was indeed the stepping stone that popularized (the biological part of) the naturalistic world view, but he was hardly the first to suggest it.
_{Gotta plug my countryman Linnaeus here.}

It was, “This was designed.” And yes, before we had any real reason to think that complexity could arise from the natural world, an assertion of design wasn’t illogical at all.

But arguments like this was pushed back by any number of Greek philosophies, including the idea of the atom - infinite complexity arising from a single indivisible element. If the defense of “looks designed” philosophy is simply an incredulity toward naturally arising complexity, ideas such as the atom should properly nail it shut. I guess I just don’t see your point here.

but you have to remember that during those pre-enlightenment times science really didn’t achieve all that much. It wasn’t until the scientific method that science was actually credible.

Oh come on! That’s just outright false. There was a significant increase in discovery after the enlightement, mostly due to the spread and standardization of a scientific method. But to claim that pre-enlightement science didn’t achieve much is.. wild. The core of mathematics, the backbone of science, was formulated centuries before the enlightement, along with central concepts like geometry and logic. I don’t understand how you can claim what you do here.

When explaining the eventual rejection of the deist argument, the importance of Darwinism, of the idea that design could come from nature and a very, very strong proof that this fully explained and proved adaptation, cannot be overstated.

I agree.

I think the real issue I have with what you’re saying is that you’re glossing over the significant achievements of early science - building blocks still in use today, created well before what we see as modern science (post-enlightenment). The scientific method itself predates the enlightenment significantly - but again, it was not widely spread. Of course, widespread education is a pretty novel idea & one that has shifted the balance toward reason moreso than the discoveries it teaches IMHO.