I guess that would apply to all those who attack Darwinism as well? But Darwinism is well founded in observation and data. Are these myths you refer to equally well founded?
Bertvan: The belief that the fossils which have been found gradually
turned into each other is also a myth--with nothing to support it other than
the passionate wish that this simplistic formula IS an ultimate understanding
Of course that is merely a statement of your belief, hardly reflecting reality.
Bertvan: Part of It may even be true, but science has no understanding of
the mechanism by which major changes in organisms happened. Insisting that
"random mutation and natural selection" is the answer, might even eventually
damage the credibility of science as Neo Darwinism becomes less and less
Sure that might always happen. Perhaps though you would like to take this back to a scientific level and start discussing alternatives, their evidence and data? And perhaps you might want to show why random mutation and natural selection cannot work? That would be far more useful than your simple statements of belief.