From Paul Braterman at The Conversation, we learn stuff like:
Evolution, Pence argues, is a theory, theories are uncertain, therefore evolution is uncertain. But evolution is a theory only in the scientific sense of the word. And in the words of the National Academy of Sciences, “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Attaching this label to evolution is an indicator of strength, not weakness.
Actually, string theory and multiverse theories are elaborate theories too; there is just no evidence for them. It simply isn’t the case, as Braterman claims, that the word “theory” in science means that the evidence base is vast or strong or even that it exists. And
Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.
Has this guy never heard of convergent evolution? Lots of people have.
And how about this:
Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action. More.
Yes, that’s called design. And so?
The late Will Provine (1942–2015) used to note that creationist students tend to know more about evolution than their “just shoot the shot, pass, and forget it” peers (By Design or by Chance, p. 141). Seminars at churches are more informative than hanging out at pot shops and malls.
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
One concern is that if Darwinians cannot reach their social control goals peaceably, they will resort to other methods.
See also: Teaching evolution to creationist students: Why would anyone who was embarking on teaching evolution as a serious project in good faith try to involve a virulently anti-religious figure like Dawkins in the argument?
Tales of the Tone Deaf, featuring dim profs writing in dozy journals about why people doubt Science and how to fix them.
Evolution appears to converge on goals—but in Darwinian terms, is that possible?