No we do not.
What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.
There's so much of that which is incorrect. First, science does not actually care about battling religion. It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now. With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.
Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever. If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.
Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory. The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened! That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread. YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him. I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.
I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying. I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.
First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.
I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.
JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.
He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.
