[inquest]

[Except that with Darwinism, that is the theory.]

As always... incorrect.

Then you're contradicting yourself. At #537, you were asked by another poster why you thought he was advocating ID, and you replied, "You've come out against evolution. There are few other options." You then confirmed at #540 that Darwinism and ID are the only two options that can even remotely be worth contemplating at all.

So for all intents and purposes, you've defined Darwin's theory as the proposition that ID is false. In other words, what I said that you quoted above, is indeed correct, according to the logic you've laid down.

[orionblamblam]

> Then you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. The claim was made that all Darwinism was was the a priori assumption of no superanturalism. Darwinism is far mroe than that. That initial assumption is one of the first steps, but it's hardly the sum total as you seem to be suggesting.

> you've defined Darwin's theory as the proposition that ID is false.

Incorrect, as usual. ID is bad/nonexistent science, but Darwinism is far more than that. ID, on the other hand, is very little more than "I don't like Darwinism."

[porkchops 4 mahound]

WARNING!

Do NOT confuse Darwinian fundamentalists with logical thought or persuasion. (It confuses, and startles them, sometimes leading their herds to stampede.)

Do NOT believe they seek any actual "TRUTH", they only want to POSE as folks of superior "SCIENTIFICNESS". (That is to say, "debate" is useless with them, because they are incapable of intellectual honesty.)

Remember, back away slowly, do NOT show fear.