Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean? Do you mean the social progress that imagine would occur if people gave up thoughts of God and religion and confined their thoughts of reality to the material world? It seems so.

Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant.

Bobert, while science informs technology, they are not the same thing. Technology is DESIGN. Things that miraculous as you described just don't assemble themselves and start working. Man himself becomes the analogy. This is why machines came first. At the time, man's conception of himself according to science was mechanistic a la Descartes. After DNA, you get computers. It's not that the mechanistic aspect is not still there, it's just that it's likely to be a combination of both and much lighter on the hardware. They started out clunky and they got smaller and smaller and smaller. I'm typing on an iphone. It's a phone, a texting device, a calculator, a camera, a music player, a notebook, a datebook, an address book, a time piece, an alarm clock, a compass, an internet browser, an NSA tracking device...