Evidence of design .... ?

But wouldnt one then HAVE to assent to Gould's argument for curent utility of Darwin's orchid (in attempts to invert Paley) to which I read a preference on his (Gould's) part to get to a discussion of macroevolution before molecular genetics was found comensurate with some molecular embryology? A French scientist in WHEN CELLS DIE clearly made a case against selection from without that is this without this fast. Gould was afraid of saying what within for philosophical reasons only and his commitment to a certain USE of Darwin's logic which he knows is not the whole empricial sentence.The issue is if NS is a lateral force or if instead the linear teaching of biological change across scales will never be so heirarchisized. My guess is that Gould used the logic to guraentee the disposition NO MATTER WHAT DATA COMES IN. My guess is that mathematical induction is a better means to integrate molecular genetics and MESO evolution to say eventually IF THAT TIME anything about using post-newtonian reasoning not in newtons sense but not following einsteins either as to a LEGAL (uniformitarian) response but to have now evolutionist construct a LEGALLY binding teaching will surely repress many students thoughts and perhaps hamstring the devestation that nanotech could unleash if not ecologically checked. Conservatiev vocies are in the minority and need not be kept in mind compared to major sound that is currently sound.