In my work in aerospace R&D I produce computer simulations using what is arguably the most sophisticated Finite Element Analysis program ever developed: LS-DYNA. It was originally conceived and developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the mid-1970s for research into variable-yield nuclear weapons. For more than 35 years it has been under constant refinement and development by the best and the brightest in the field.
This computational tool is phenomenally valuable and powerful, because it can tell you what is likely to work and what is not. However, it is not a perfect representation of reality — simplifying assumptions must be made or the computational overhead will become insurmountable. The trick is knowing and identifying what simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, in order to produce a valid computational result that conforms with physical reality.
I’ve just completed a series of FEA simulations at work, and I have empirical verification that my simulations are accurate for part of the simulation suite, but I cannot be sure that the rest of the simulation is accurate concerning the components for which I have no empirical validation.
We will therefore produce physical tests to validate the accuracy of the simulations. The value of the simulations is that we can hopefully destroy one thing at minimal cost, as opposed to destroying many things at a huge cost in order to get it right by iterative destruction and refinement of real, expensive, physical stuff.
Despite the incredible sophistication of LS-DYNA, empirical tests are always required to validate the results.
Where is such a standard of empirical validation for Darwinian “scientists”? They tell stories, invent weasel computer programs that have nothing to do with physical or evolutionary reality, pontificate, and tell intelligent people who point out the rationally ludicrous nature of their propositions that such people “just don’t understand evolutionary theory” (meaning, of course, the power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection to explain all of biological reality).
I understand it just fine, and it’s logically, mathematically, and empirically totally vacuous.
The answer is: Darwinism is pseudoscience. It has some measure of truth (random mutations and natural selection can do some stuff), but is held to a low standard of evidence that would be laughed at and ridiculed by any legitimate scientist in any rigorous field of scientific endeavor.