Yinepuhotep,
“The theory of evolution addresses how life changes to better cope with the environment in which it finds itself. That is FACT. No amount of religious nuttery from IDT wackjobs can change the FACTS.”
Uhm dude, you are talking about adaptation. Adaptation is not in dispute with anyone. The ability of variation-plus-selection to adapt an organisms to changing envirnoments, to protect the oprganism from predatory organisms, and increase the range of a species is not, and has never been, the issue. Hell, not even common descent is in question.
What is in contention is random evolution versus intelligant evolution (Design). Its is a fact of scientific evidence that the common Theory of Evolution (by itself) cannot account for what has been found in the fossil record.
Why do you think Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge wrote about “punctuated equilibium”? It wasn’t because the fossil record mapped out Darwin’s idea, and they just wanted to make fools of themselves by explaining something already explained. Think about it. Why does Chen comment that the tree of life is starting to look “more like a lawn” – after he discovered a 520 myo big-brained chordate floating among the sponges?
Why does the father of string theory, Leonard Susskind, think science (without a multi-universe model, where anything and everything is possible) will have a hard time explaining the design inference in apparent in nature?
Why? Are they displaying religious nuttery? Are they the whackjobs you mentioned? Is Lenny Susskind the IDT loonie that is running scared?
Before you make such comments as above, perhaps you should get your facts straight.
