... No Compelling Data To Support Its

I Emphatically Do Not Assert The General 'truth' Of This Philosophy Of Punctuational Change. Any Attempt To Support The Exclusive Validity Of Such A Grandiose Notion Would Border On The Nonsensical.

Humans Arose ... As A Fortuitous And Contingent Outcome Of Thousands Of Linked Events, Any One Of Which Could Have Occurred Differently And Sent History On An Alternative Pathway That Would Not Have Led To Consciousness.

Creationist Critics Often Charge That Evolution Cannot Be Tested, And Therefore Cannot Be Viewed As A Properly Scientific Subject At All. This Claim Is Rhetorical Nonsense.

Antiessentialist Thinking Forces Us To View The World Differently. We Must Accept Shadings And Continua As Fundamental. We Lose Criteria For Judgment By Comparison To Some Ideal: Short People, Retarded People, People Of Other Beliefs, Colors, And Religions Are People Of Full Status.

Why, Then, Do I Continue To Claim That Creationism Isn't Science? Simply Because These Relatively Few Statements Have Been Tested And Conclusively Refuted.