Your plant and dog breeding analogy is not a great one, since it involves a human planner (designer), hence any changes are not unguided.

I have pointed at the underlying mechanics, and also stated that in the case of natural selection (in nature, obviously) it’s based on adaptability where the metric and guiding principle is death — look up dingoes or feral cats.

It is not the science of evolution that I’m criticising, rather the unwarranted (and inaccurate) metaphysical conclusions.

Yet, you do that by criticizing science of evolution:

“In various previous articles I have suggested that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is closer to a religious faith than it is to science … Enough said! And we are meant to believe that this is science.”

So, which one is it?

I won’t go point by point through your (Hayward’s) quotes. We’ve already discussed them all in the past.

All in all, your (and Hayward’s) arguments amount to something like this: “We don’t have a working theory of everything, hence theory of relativity and standard model are wrong, hence God is true and resides in Heaven and we can go there after death (or we reincarnate),” or “The theory of evolution is still incomplete, hence wrong, hence the same applies.”

And that is equally “unwarranted and inaccurate” metaphysical conclusion.