A political controversy? Uncommon Descent picks up on sword:
It’s not a political controversy. It is:
1) An evidential controversy (for example, the fossil record, especially the Cambrian explosion).
2) A logical and computational controversy (the insufficiency of random errors producing highly complex, functionally integrated, self-correcting computer code).
3) A mathematical controversy (clearly insufficient probabilistic resources for anything but the most trivial changes based on Darwinian mechanisms).Well said. Two comments.
1. If by evolution we mean that species change over time and share DNA, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
2. However, there is equally overwhelming evidence that the mechanism posited by darwinists -- undesigned, undirected, unintelligent chance variation -- is by incapable of producing elegant new designs.
The naturalist scientist sticks to darwinian explanations regardless of the improbabilities or inconsistencies -- because it's the only conceivable tool in his naturalistic tool-box. A person not wedded to the materialistic philosophy of naturalism is free to examine the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.
I believe in the principle of sufficient reason -- that everything that exists or happens has a sufficient reason (or cause) for its existence. Not just a cause. A sufficient cause. That's why I reject darwinism -- the mechanism posited is feeble and insufficient.
The gap between what exists and the darwinian mechanism's ability to produce the goods is not just a minor problem, it is huge. This gap includes the obvious physical design complexities of human beings and other species, but also includes things like human aspirations and moral sense. To the extent that there is a gap between what exists and the sufficiency of the darwinian mechanism to adequately account for it, darwinists believe in magic (hello, SDC -- I'm toyin' with ya).
And that's the way the Ball bounces.