> I could point to many theories that were declared debunked but were later revived under different names, eg Lamarckian evolution, now a hot field again under

> I could point to many theories that were declared debunked but were later revived under different names, eg Lamarckian evolution, now a hot field again under the name epigenetics. Lamarckism was never suppressed, mendelian genetics proved a better model as the primary driver of evolution. Are you claiming the Lamarckism is being actively suppressed? You're still dancing around the question. > otherwise rational people to refuse to admit that an unfalsifiable theory (like that ALL speciation proceeds by random mutation and natural selection, ie things we understand which we call natural) It is falsifiable, if we observed new species popping into existence then the theory would be on shaky grounds to say the least. Even if we could find species that didn't appear to have a common ancestor would be evidence against natural selection. > I will directly ask: how is that more rational than theism? It's more rational because it's simpler, it takes know testable laws and uses them to provide an explanation. Theism posits something much more complicated and completely unknown as the explanation where it's not necessary. And while we're here lets be real, you aren't talking about theism in general but a specific form of mono-theism that you likely grew up with. After naturalism I would find pantheism to be much more rational, if one god can pop into existence then many can.