The source who reported on U.S. Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott’s recent talk in Scottsdale, Arizona, on why you can’t teach evidence against evolution, asked her for clarification.
Now, when she says “evolution,” we are pretty sure she means Darwinism. Why? Let investigative journalist Suzan Mazur explain. Her story is consistent with another episode in the life of the Darwin lobby. His note to her:
You stated in your April 17 talk in Scottsdale, AZ:
There is no evidence against evolution. There is no evidence against the idea that livings things shared common ancestry. All of the evidence that we have from biogeography, from comparative anatomy, from genetics, from the fossil record, from any number of different sources, that all is very compatible and pointing very clearly to the inference that living things had common ancestors. Nothing out there is running a big neon light saying, ‘Whoa! Evolution fails here! We have to toss it out!’
If “there is no evidence against evolution”, or indeed could exist, how then can evolution be testable?
The answer he got back was
That no evidence exists is not the same as claiming that no evidence COULD
So … no evidence against the only form of evolution that Genie’s lobby, NCSE, is interested in exists? There must be a thousand pieces on this site alone. Thoughts?
Is it possible that she is now ambiguating between “evolution” and “Darwinian evolution”?
Follow UD News at Twitter!