But here is the passage that got my back up. This is the one that made me get up out of my chair and come over to the seat in front of the computer:

"Although some might use this lack of consensus to criticize [the holographic theory,] it should be remembered that Darwin's theory of evolution... is also still very much in a state of flux."

Honestly, I think this comparison is inexcusible, considering that Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science. Darwin's theory of evolution is as science as science comes, and the fact that its "scope [and] interpretations" etc. are a matter of debate does not make it any less so.

The holographic model may well be a good theory. Maybe great. I don't know. Maybe it's more profound than the theory of biological evolution — but the theory of biological evolution is science. The holographic model is a proposed interpretation.