Home » Darwinism, Evolution » NCSE stands firm: There is no evidence against (Darwinian) evolution

NCSE stands firm: There is no evidence against (Darwinian) evolution

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:

Genie,

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
exist.- Genie

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!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

3 Responses to NCSE stands firm: There is no evidence against (Darwinian) evolution

  1. Scott is right: no such evidence has been presented.

    But if you disagree with that, you could produce what you consider the single best piece of evidence for further discussion?

  2. Is it possible that she is now ambiguating between “evolution” and “Darwinian evolution”?

    That was my first thought: She is equivocating as so many Darwinists do. They use uncontroversial references to micro-evolution then conflate that with Darwinian evolution. She obviously knows better, which is why I find it dishonest.

  3. If Dr. Scott were on trial in a court of law, would it be fair if only her opponent was allowed to present evidence? No, the jury would surely want the court to hear her side of the matter.

    For many years, only evolution’s side has been heard in colleges, high schools, even grade schools, and in nearly all scientific literature published throughout most of the world. But now there is a rising demand to hear the other side.

    Reasonable persons agree that the only fair method is to examine the evidence on both sides, both for and against a disputed theory. That is how one arrives at the truth.

Leave a Reply