So Joe Agnost, ToE is not a "theory" any longer, huh? Tell us when did it pass from "theory" and into absolute "fact"?
WarbVIII, I do work in the medical field. I love operational science and work closely with our Infectious Disease Doctors who deal with real world virus' on a daily basis.
I look back at the history of science for the past 500 years and I am reminded that there were MANY "wrong turns" by the mainstream science of the day, including Ptolemy's earth-centered universe ( replace by Copernicus's sun-centered theory ), Galen's theory of the four humors of the blood ( replaced by Harvey's work on blood circulation ), something I know a lot about since I am on the Blood Util committee for our hospital, the theory that now - extinct land animals crossed to different continents by means of now - submerged "land bridges" ( replaced by the theory of plate tectonics ), and other now rejected theories as discussed in the landmark work by Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thus, opponents of Darwinism are not, as this kind of objection suggests, asserting something that has no precedent in the history of science. The fact that you think it does shows that you are ignorant of much of that history and just accept BLINDLY what some people are telling you. I'm not so Naive.
Darwinism has gained and maintained its position because it is a THEORY that scientists very much want to be true, because it removes one of the main lines of argument asserted by religious leaders; that there must be a God because no natural force could explain the diversity of life. By removing that line of argument, science enhances the authority of scientific leaders in competition with religious leaders on the matter of great public importance. That is what the famous debate between T.H. Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce was all about: who would be humiliated and who would control the podium. We are seeing a bit of a snag these days with "Global warming theories." One could only hope that there was that much dissension in the ranks when ToE begin 150 years ago.
The question remains: Most scientists CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE of DESIGN and HAVE NO GRASP of how they would DO SCIENCE given that fact.
Still, to me, even with all that said, Evolution is not so important to me--as it is to you ( and many in this forum. ) I am constantly reminded that God is sovereign over that "theory" staying in place just as much as He is those handful of men whom He would lead to Himself DESPITE the adherence to the "theory."