Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable, but Neo-Darwinism is not one of them. Why? Because it is a deduction from materialism, which for Darwinists is axiomatically true. Accordingly, something akin to ne-Darwinism must be true virtually as a matter of logical necessity. This is why, for example, Darwinists refuse to accept that notwithstanding that in all of human experience, information always proceeds from mind, and notwithstanding that the complexity of information necessary to instantiate and to change life could not possibly have happened by random mutation and chance, intelligent design is nevertheless ruled out of order. Why? Because it does not indulge the materialist philosophical prejudice that is axiomatic to the alleged truth of Neo-Darwinism and which disqualifies all competing non-materialist theories regardless of how well they are supported evidentiarily. In sum, evolution is not falsifiable because it is fundamentally a philosophical (viz. religious) system of thought, not an empirical one and any competing theory which does not indulge the underlying materialist prejudice is ruled out of order virtually by definition. And then of course, you have the related problem that competing theories are simply not permitted to set foot in the public square. Witness the sneering caricature of the "creationist" label applied to anyone who doubts the grand, unsupported claims of Darwinism, as if in merely doubting they magically become 6 day biblical literalists. This is the stock in trade of the defense of Neo-Darwinism. It has been on display in this thread in spades. It stands for the proposition that honest discussion of argument and evidence must not be permitted to occur and the reason it cannot be permitted to occur is because Neo-Darwinists are deathly afraid of that discussion occurring. That's why they don't want criticism of Darwinism even discussed in the public school. They know that if people hear the actual evidence and arguments the cultural power of the Neo-Darwinists will evaporate. What we actually have now in this country is a state religion----the state religion of materialism with its creation myth, Neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinian creation story has replaced the old theistic one and maintaining cultural power against the hated theists is all-important, the truth be damned.
Wow. "Those of us who believe in evolution do so only because of our prejudices which disallow us to consider any alternative." Is that pretty much it?
Have you no concept of irony?
Many of us who now are convinced of the validity of evolution, were trained from birth in the religious tenets which demand creationism. And some of us, myself included, as we learned the truth of science, came to understand those tenets as mythology. Because (in my case anyway) I looked at both, the science and the religion, with an open mind.
But you see, if tomorrow, we discovered real evidence that something did plant on Earth each of the billions of species which we know have inhabited the Earth over the last dozen million years, I would have no problem accepting the alternate explanation.
The reality of my existence, my hope for an eternal afterlife of bliss and pleasure is not at risk. I have no investment in my belief in evolution. As opposed to the creationist?????????
Neo-Darwinism is premised on a philosophy called materialism which dictates that something akin to Neo-Darwinism (as an explanation for life on this planet) is true as a matter of logical necessity. Its pejorative to call it a prejudice, something I did not do, but which you did to try to caricature what I said in a way that misleads. The point simply is that the philosophy which dictates the putative truth of the theory is a metaphysical commitment, not an empirical construct and if the metaphysical premise is false, the theory is unlikely to be true no matter how badly we want to believe it to be true.
