[DittoJed2]

I don't care how many generations it hypothesizes. What it says is that classical Darwinianism did not deliver on the answers to an evolutionary scientist's questions, did not show what it promised, so this fellow (or fellows) had to come up with a revised theory to try to explain the record.

[Junior]

"Classical Darwinianism" is not the end-all, be-all of evolutionary biology. There have been 150 years of additions, modifications and updates to the original theory. The current theory is far stronger than anything Darwin proposed, or that any creationist has proposed, for that matter.

[VadeRetro]

What it says is that classical Darwinianism did not deliver on the answers to an evolutionary scientist's questions, did not show what it promised, so this fellow (or fellows) had to come up with a revised theory to try to explain the record.

Science is about understanding the world. It adjusts to new evidence as needed. That it does so makes it different from religion.

Science hasn't gone back to ascribing real-world phenomena to the actions of magical beings. Ascribing things to magical beings will be wrong forever.