credit shimrod for looking it up. however both you and stu are passing off the predictive success of humphriess, by a little mockery.

tell you what , stu. you just write "creation" and i'll try and reciprocate by writing "evolution". you want the ism left off,- you do the same.
"simple template..."? certainly there are similarities but template seems to be somewhat of an exaggeration, and in some instances way off mark. I understand that in some cultures similarities are honoured as a mark of ownership, and there is certainly no obligation for a creator to pander to groundless scepticism.
natural selection may be one of the mechanisms of evolutionism but is powerless to turn microbes to man over however long. mutations have not been demonstrated either to create the new information needed to facilitate the evolutionary pathway. dawkins could not think of any when he was asked to give an example. what few questionable examples are around fall far short of whats needed.do you know of any definite examples?
I suggest that using natural selection / mutations as evidence of Darwinism of whatever variety is misleading equivocation.
- also called switch and bait.

musket- you may not be surprised to know that I don't like superstitious religious ideas being taught to our kids as fact, under the guise of science, but I am quite happy for Darwin to be taught as an alternative to creation, as long as they are given the complete picture. at present it is taught as certain fact despite only being an interpretation of data, as Darwin himself admitted.