Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true. It would be unreasonable to assume so. Nature may turn out to be discontinuous after all. Creation events may not be subject to scientific investigation, but stasis most definitely is.
Stasis is data.
In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science. If it turns out that natural selection plays a more dominant role in the phenomenon of higher taxon-level stasis than it does in major evolutionary change, the irony will be that Darwin himself may have predicted this opposite conclusion over 130 years ago. I am well aware that there is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.