SB>is this news to anyone? To you? Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) warned Darwin not
>to adhere too closely to Charles Lyell's ideas about strict gradualism.
SJ: And Darwin rightly ignored Huxley's saltationism because then, as now, there
is no viable naturalistic mechanism for saltational change. Indeed, arguably
Huxley was not really a true Darwinian:
Hox genes would seem to give some life back to "saltationism".
SJ: Manipulation of the terminology also allows natural selection to
appear and disappear on command.
Unsupported assertion.
SJ: When unfriendly critics are absent,
Darwinists can just assume the creative power of natural selection
and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been
observed. When critics appear and demand empirical confirmation,
Darwinists can avoid the test by responding
that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms, particularly
at the molecular level, which relegate selection to a less important
role.
Speaking of building a strawman.
SJ: The fact of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if
there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
You are now confusing the issue by confounding the terminology. THe fact of evolution is not what is being discussed but the theory is.
SJ: With such flexibility, anything and its opposite can be explained
effortlessly!
That's ID for you.
SJ: "Contemporary neo-Darwinists also practice a tactically advantageous flexibility
concerning the frequency and importance of non-selective evolution....Readers
should therefore beware of taking at face value claims by neo-Darwinist
authorities that some critic has misunderstood or mischaracterized their theory."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p16)
Sure, if that is the case. Of course that hardly means that this really is the case.