Not happy with what she hears:
According to PBS’s Evolution website, “The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.”
Really? I remember my science teacher said that, if a statement is too absolute, it is likely unscientific.
As of April 2020, more than 1,100 scientists and researchers in chemistry, biology, medicine, physics, geology, anthropology, paleontology, statistics and other fields have signed a scientific dissent from Darwinism. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”Jean Chen, “A Mom’s Research (Part 5): A Deep Dive into Evolution” at Epoch Times (June 4, 2021)
Chen’s onto something there.
See, I couldn’t prove to you that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. Or that he does.
It is very difficult to prove a negative apart from mathematics and you might justifiably reject any positive evidence I offered for his existence as capable of an alternative explanation.
Now, as for random movements of nature resulting in complex machinery, we know from experience that it is overwhelmingly unlikely in real life. Lots of time will not bridge that gap. So, apart from philosophical commitments favoring belief, Darwinism is overwhelmingly unlikely to be true.
Millions of doctoral shouts in Darwinism’s favor are not the same thing as evidence. If I had to cite one reason for not teaching Darwinism in schools, I would say that it encourages the incorrect belief that an “overwhelming consensus” is the same thing as evidence.
Consider a court case: Learned Counsel for the Defence can show that Harvey Scuzz, accused, was nowhere near the scene of the crime on the night in question (because he was dead drunk at the bottom of his landlady’s stairs, as attested by several emergency services personnel, who responded to her call).
If you believe these people are telling the truth about Scuzz’s position and condition on the night in question, that settles the matter. It doesn’t matter what 1000 PhD’s think about the probability of Scuzz being “just the sort of man who would do that.” They might be right but it doesn’t matter.
If no one has ever been able to demonstrate in real life that an alarm clock assembles itself all by itself, why should I believe that a life form does? Why should that be taught in school? Can’’t we just say that we don’t know? It’s really a matter of belief. Or not, as the case may be. No one should be persecuted for doubt in such a case.