As is other good science. So why the empty rethoric here dear Stephen?
and 2) claims to be the only materialistic-naturalistic theory, even in principle, which can account for life's complex design without a Designer:
Yawn, you are now confusing Darwinism with what people believe.
SJ: But I would however be "really interested in" what alternative to "Darwinism" that Darren has which can explain the "the evident design of the Bombardier Beetle"!
What evident design?
DC>It is too easy to criticise other people's theories
SJ: Apart from the fact that real science should *encourage* criticism of its "theories",
Of course, but empty rethoric is not criticism that should be encouraged.
the "other people's theories" in this case happens to be *Darwinism* the reigning scientific theory of evolution, taught in most (if not all) schools and universities with taxpayer funding, of
how life supposedly arose without the need for a Creator.
See my previous remark about empty rethoric.