I'm not the one with the closed mind, if you think peer reviewed journals are anything close to data.

Peer reviewed journals are what makes it a philosophy.

I'm not sure evolution exists outside of as a philosophy. I know of no human beings who have lived for more than 2 million years, nor do we have historical record before the beginning of our species.

It's a pretty good model though. But one should not confuse model with reality.

The claim to "no morality" is in and of itself a morality: a draconian freedom of subjectivity.

But that, in and of itself, IS an ethics/morality- it is the statement that ethics and morality in that system is subjective. Personally, I can't understand why anybody would think morality should be subjective in an objective universe.

But his body has betrayed him, and a 21st century Pope needs the ability to handle a TransAtlantic flight. So it is a good thing, I think, for him to retire.

May the next Pope be an African, or a South American Latino! Now that would shake things up- moving the conversation away from abortion and gay marriage, to polygamy and witchcraft.....

Everything has something to say about morals, if you understand the concept of rational objective morality. It always amazes me that people who can understand the concept of objective science, think that morality can possibly be subjective in an objective universe.

All of science is philosophy.

Just because you can see something that looks like your model, neither means that your model or your eyes are correct.

First you have to define the word "two". That's a model.

Thought Hippocrates was a Greek pagan, not an atheist. Try again.

Epicurus didn't have an objective definition of evil. Neither do you.

Yep. Second hand fables. Kind of like most published science today.

The goat's gibblets are just for dramatic effect.

Really? How does evolution explain a benzene ring?

There are certain precursors to life that are not explained by evolution.