Recently, I (O’Leary for News) wrote,
Darwinism is somewhat like the traditional notion of the spontaneous generation of life. It is never actually demonstrated, only propounded. In the case of Darwinian evolution by widely publicized piffling examples like Darwin’s finches, which, after all the science media hoopla, remain just finches, with varying adaptations from one cycle of seasons to the next.
In response, Tim Standish, Senior Scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute, writes to correct me, pointing out that
One difference between Darwinism and spontaneous generation is that spontaneous generation was a testable hypothesis. It may have taken quite a bit of testing before reaching a consensus that it doesn’t happen, but at least that was possible in principle. Darwinism uses time to put many of its claims beyond testing. Everything of importance happened so long ago and so slowly that it is fundamentally beyond observation or testing… except when it “happens before our eyes” in which case one has to wonder why all the important stuff is not observable.
Yes, that was the problem we always had with leprechauns too…
But then Darwinians can’t even accept the evidence that their beliefs are generally called Darwinism.
See also: If Braterman wants to learn something, he could begin by wiping the sneer off his face.
and
The term “Darwinism” was coined by enemies of Darwin to make him look bad?