Are there genuine objectors on FR? I wasn't aware of any.
The real objections to TOE aren't on the basic theory. There is simply too much evidence behind it.
The real legitimate questions regarding TOE are what it doesn't answer. How did life first start? What are the mechanisms that is life? etc. etc. Answering those questions might be like Einstein answering the Mercury orbit question, and it might completely transform the science. Force still equals mass times acceleration but now we know that energy equals mass. Newtons equations are still valid, but we have a much bigger picture now.
My reply was in response to the frequent identification of those who question the basic premise of Darwinism with Literal 6 day creationists.
First, a basic fact: while many intelligent design proponents believe in a Creator (which is their world-view right), not all do. Some hold that some immanent principle or law in nature could design the universe. That is: to believe in intelligent design is not necessarily to believe in a transcendent creative being.
However, what is rhetorically significant is the further fact that the term “creationist” is very often used today in a derogatory way.
Traditionally, the word was used to describe the world view that God created the universe, a belief shared by many ID scientists, and even some ID critics. But now, that same term is too often used dishonestly in an attempt to associate intelligent design, an empirically-based methodology, with Creationism, a faith-based methodology.
Some Darwinist advocates and some theistic evolutionists seem to feel that if they can tag ID with the “Creationist” label often enough and thus keep the focus away from science–if they can create the false impression that ID allows religious bias to “leak” into its methodology–if they can characterize it as a religious presupposition rather than a design inference –then the press and the public will eventually come to believe that ID is not really science at all.
In short, anti-ID ideologues use the word “creationist” to distract from a scientific debate that they cannot win on the merits. The only real question is whether someone who uses this dubious strategy is doing so out of ignorance (having been taken in by it, too) or out of malice.
Darwin's hypothesis does not rest upon equations, but rather observation and supposition. I suspect you know this already, but I wanted to clarify this for the rabble.
I do not doubt the basic hypothesis of evolution -- that life forms evolve, but the dynamism of any organism's genetic code, combined with recent and reputable observation, does point to a better theory which is far more, how do I say, Lamarckian in nature.
Unlike simply noting the similarities and differences between certain populations in various stages of isolation and drawing conclusions as to the mechanism by which those variations have arisen, the process of measuring, experimenting, observing, predicting and re-confirming, say, how phenotype alterations write themselves into the genotype is how real science occurs.
If you throw out observations because they do not conform to your hoped for outcomes is not real science.
Thus; back to the AGW topic, when half of the Russian temp data is thrown out because it fails to demonstrate the hoped-for warming of IPCC "scienticians", we see bad science.
Dogma is a crutch for small minds - in any field.