In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.
Repeating talking points is not understanding science. Evolution is a stochastic process. And all science, by definition, is solely natural. The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.
Complete and utter nonsense. Even with a virus, scientist can witness first hand evolutionary changes where the virus becomes more complex and adapts to survive and thrive in varying environments or conditions.
This is what kills me about creationist. They expect that for a theory to accurate or "provable", it needs to be replicated or produced in a lab someplace. Ridiculous. Science can't replicate gravity, but that doesn't diminish the theory that explains gravity and it's effects in a physical world.
The fact that in 2009, in the most scientifically advanced society on the planet, we have a large group of people that want to teach their religious beliefs in a scientific classroom is frightening with respect to America's ability to continue to be a leader, rather than a follower in scientific innovation.
What's even more disturbing is that the GOP seems handcuffed and beholden to such idiocy and that some people label such fantasy as "conservative ideology". When did the philosophy of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Russel Kirk get hijacked by such lunacy?