Applied science has no need for the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth. If it does, it hasn’t appeared in this thread.
And your opinion means what?
All I’ve seen so far is a bunch of evolutionist who are having trouble accepting that their Darwinist interpretation of the history of life on earth is nothing more than a useless story.
So, you go from "Darwinian interpretations" (whatever that means) having no practical application to practical biology, to Darwinian interpretations being useless.
Bait and switch much?
And you haven't shown either to be the case. That's a major fail.
So what? Will the world stop turning if no one offers a scientific explanation for what was responsible for the history of life on earth?
Did anyone say that?
Strawman much?
I don't care about scientific theories that can ever be tested and could be dead wrong.
But you do care about UN-scientific theories that are untestable and could be wrong.
Sure, that makes sense.
Yep, the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life on earth is “useful” as a creation story in atheist folklore. But as science, it’s as irrelevant as stories about parallel universes.
According to you. The person who doesn't care about explanations.
You are fount of common sense today.