Coyote says
This whole thread has been silly.
If you want a professional quality debate, just contact Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education.
Or perhaps Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University. He did pretty well at Dover.
Why are you trolling internet chat/debate rooms instead of seeking out organizations and individuals who have been dealing with this issue for years?
Can't handle the big time?
I agree that the criteria appear to be a reflection of an overdeveloped sense of self worth.
Indeed TOE has been around for over 150 years and worked on by very well credentialed researchers and is more of a mess today than it ever was.
The simple reference to neo-Darwinism as opposed to Darwinism is one small demonstration of the theory of evolution being a theory in evolution itself with little, if any, predictive ability past hindsight.
In the end it will be a case of facing off one theory against another and discrediting one theory with yet another, and on it will go. What you are left with is accepting the theories you want to accept, ignoring the rest, but mostly requiring a whole lot of faith in the reasonings of mankind, that change like the wind.
Todays evidence for TOE is tomorrows folley. eg LUCA, knuclewalking ancestry, bipedalism tied to brain size, Mendellian inheritance confounded by Lamarkian style epigentic inheritance, HGT in prokaryotes as a confounding factor, and so the list goes on and on.
Still it may be a fun topic to watch.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
