"You said that evolution can describe the development of life."

No, Steve Shaw. I said, of evolution, that "It explains the development of life on earth..." (emphasis added). I don't think there's "description" there, is there?

Should I have said, to meet your full approval, "It explains the development of life on earth in all its beauty and diversity and complexity?" I am happy to acknowledge the "beauty and diversity and complexity" of life; but haven't you yourself omitted the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" nature of life? Beauty, after all, like brutishness, is in the eye of the beholder.

"How dry and unimaginative that is."

I picked you up on a point of science, ffs. Why do you vomit all this "dry and unimaginative," "beauty and diversity and complexity" BS? Haven't you got anything scientific to say in response to a point of science instead of this subjective crap?

"For those like you ... natural selection must seem to be too ridiculously, suspiciously, simple to explain anything."

Why don't you read what I wrote? I acknowledged that evolution (which encompasses natural selection) could account for all life except its origin (oops, sorry: for all its beauty and diversity and complexity).

Now: would you like to try again?