Thomas Cudworth in his post here referenced “…being competent in the field of evolutionary biology.”
My question is, What does it mean to be “competent” in the field of evolutionary biology?
It seems to me that it would mean providing hard empirical evidence that the mechanism of random variation/mutation and natural selection which is known to exist (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance) can be extrapolated to explain the highly functionally integrated information-processing machinery of the cell — at a very minimum! This empirical demonstration should be a prerequisite, before we even begin to entertain speculation about how this mechanism produced body plans and the human brain.
Yet, the theoretically most “highly competent” evolutionary biologists never even attempt to address this requirement. They just wave their hands, make up increasingly bizarre, mathematically absurd, unsubstantiated stories out of whole cloth (like co-option), declare that the solution has been found, and that anyone who questions them is a religious fanatic.
This is the antithesis of legitimate scientific investigation.
My definition of competence in the field of evolutionary biology is Michael Behe, who has actually empirically investigated the limitations of the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism. The conclusion is clear: It can do some stuff, but not much of any ultimate significance, and cannot possibly be extrapolated to explain what Darwinists expect us to accept through blind faith, in defiance of all reason and evidence.