Crackpot?

On the subject of "crackpot" that's a term that I prefer not to use,and in my opinion, has no place in science. Some ideas have more support than others. In science, as you well know, we never prove or disprove anything, we simply say what is more or less likely. We can safely say that astrology is "highly unlikely" to be valid, based upon a complete absence of supporting evidence. On the other hand, we can safely say that QED is "highly likely" to be valid, based upon a massive amount of evidence. Some other ideas, like QM, relativity, abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. have various amounts of supporting evidence. It is up to each individual to study the evidence and consider the liklihood of each theory being correct. Sometimes a consensus emerges in the scientific community, but often times even this consensus can be wrong. The cases of Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintock comes to mind. In each of these cases, there was a strong aversion to these theories, which later proved to be correct. As for darwinism, I have studied the evidence and I have come to the conclusion that it is not strong enough to defend the idea. Others may reach different conclusions, but where the problem lies is with those who want to elevate an unproven theory to the status of "carved in stone" truth.
My belief is that many people support darwinism because they have been taught it for so long, or devoted their life's work to it, or are too scared of being labelled "crackpot" to oppose it.
I have asked evolutionists repeatedly to present the evidence for evolution.
What they do instead, is present evidence that different species are related. The fact that we're all closely related does not say anything about the mechanism of evolution.
Prof. Gould has provided 3 main evidences, small scale mutation and selection,
the fossil record, and the historical study of related species. All of these evidences are flawed and can be shown to be unsupportive.
As for the status of "why" questions in the field of science, I agree that they more properly belong to the field of philosophy. But who decides what is philosophy and what is science? Is there a definitive boundary? At one time some people believed that mind and body were separate entities. Now, most agree that they are one.
Most of the questions we're concerned with here can be properly framed without using the word "why?". For example, we can ask "by what mechanism did life come to appear on the earth and by what series of steps did it give rise to the diversity we observe today. Same with the universe. By what mechanism did the universe come to be in it's present state and what series of steps causes it to change over time?


"Here begins Homo ignoramus. He does not know what life is or how it came to be and whether it originated from inorganic matter. He does not know whether other planets of this sun or of other suns have life on them, and if they have, whether the forms of life there are like those around us, ourselves included. He does not know how this solar system came into being, although he has built up a few hypotheses about it. He knows only that the solar system was constructed billions of years ago. He does not know what this mysterious force of gravitation is that holds him and his fellow man on the other side of the planet with their feet on the ground, although he regards the phenomenon itself as "the law of laws." He does not know what the earth looks like five miles under his feet. He does not know how mountains came into existence or what caused the emergence of the continents, although he builds hypotheses about these, nor does he know from where oil came- again hypotheses. He does not know why, only a short time ago, a thick glacial sheet pressed upon most of Europe and North America, as he believes it did; nor how palms could grow above the polar circle, nor how it came about that the same fauna fill the inner lakes of the Old and the New World. He does not know where the salt in the sea came from. Although man knows that he has lived on this planet for millions of years, he finds a recorded history of only a few thousand years. And even these few thousand years
are not sufficiently well known." -Velikovsky

I read those words when I was 15 years old. And they changed the course of my life. Not for the particular examples cited, but because of our immense arrogance. Lord Kelvin said a hundred years ago that all of the problems in physics had been solved. All that was left was to dot the I's and cross the T's.
Evolutionists and cosmologists of today display the same arrogance. They know
nothing of how the universe came to be and how the life on earth came to be. And they have the arrogance to even suggest that darwinian evolution and big bang cosmology have answered most of the questions.