D Bunker simply ‘knows’ that evolution took place. This level of certainty can only come from his atheist faith, as he has not (a) investigated the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism/evolution himself (b) observed a debate between experts on Darwinism/evolution such as was initiated a few years ago over AGW, in which Channel 4 made ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ and the BBC replied with their views in ‘Climate Wars’. But of course we all know that all further documentaries critical of AGW were blocked from the TV media, with the BBC shouting and screaming and giving maximum publicity to those who complained to Ofcom about GGWS. So the debate was successfully terminated and the Climate Change Act was passed that will cost us £400 billion (over a period, by the government’s own figures).

A similar wall of protection that currently exists for the AGW beliefs in the TV media also exists for the Darwinism/evolution beliefs, although the latter wall has never been breached, unlike the breach of the AGW wall by Channel 4, once and once only.

I do not see how an open-minded person can conclude that a theory such as AGW or Darwinism must be a ‘fact’ without having gone through either (a) or (b) above. But I suppose we all think differently and some are content to form an opinion after hearing one side only without experiencing any feeling of unease.

On your other point, yes, I am agnostic and I have already ranked the alternatives to Darwinism in terms of credibility in a list going from least plausible to most plausible, in my opinion. Yet you still ask me “at least give me your preference” so you can ‘debunk’ it. Okay, one that I ‘like’ is John Wheeler's explanation of the meaning of the universe. More to do with a 'mathematical' reason for designing us than from ‘love’. I am not expert enough to fully evaluate it, but I take you up on your offer to ‘debunk’ it.

It is not necessary to refer to alternative explanations in order to evaluate Darwinism from a scientific point of view. It should stand or fail on its own merits. It makes predictions. Let these be tested, as in (b) above. This is how proper science works, and this is the only way to make true progress in science. Blocking scrutiny of a theory is a violation of the principles of science, and only serves to hinder progress in science. Progress in science has always been kept back by closed minds that do not tolerate scientific scrutiny of favoured theories.