Contradictions, Irony, and Appeals to Authority Permeate The Language of Science and Faith

Giberson and Collins appeal to authority but admit the evidence is all that matters, claim that anti-Darwin literature uses “outdated” arguments when their own book uses outdated arguments for evolution, and Giberson lacks the same qualifications of those Darwin-doubting scientists whose qualifications he attacks. Why are they making these weak, non-scientific, and self-contradictory arguments?

More Points on ERVs

In the absence of a feasible naturalistic mechanism to account for how evolution from a common ancestor could have occurred, how can we be so sure that it did occur?