Now, evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial, but....
Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve.
Creationists like to break it up into micro/macro evolution. That't not a legitimate thing,...
It seems to me this article is rife with tautologies and circular reasonings. Another way for this young man to say, "Intelligent design is just another form of creationism", is to say "Intelligent design is just another way of saying creationism because it is creationism", because I make the statement. He gives no reason or epistemic reason why, he simply asserts, then moves on. Or, "evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial,", could be stated, "evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial because I say science and climate change are not scientifically controversial." He gives no explication as to why, but rather simply asserts. You get the idea. The same can be said of the other quotes which I highlighted from the article. However there seems to be controversy on this thread from what seems to be thoughtful people on both sides of the argument.
You, being on the evolution-side of the controversy, I would ask you a question which I believe long ago I asked. Do you know that it is true that evolution accounts for the diversity of life on earth." If yes, please offer a warrant to the readers of this thread.
Evolutionists, by definition, are naturalists materialists. They believe all there is, is matter, energy, space, and time. To be consistent, they must admit this. There is no such thing in the materialists worldview as an abstract, invarient, entity.
So, let us consider evolution. The Darwinists says that evolution occurs by small genetic changes, over time, naturally selecting for survival qualities. (You would agree?) Now, in order for our species (Homo sapiens) to have evolved natural selection would have had to select for survival of the species. Natural selection does not care for beauty, truth, vice, virtue. It selects for survival. Now, for you to think through the theory of evolution and conclude that evolution is true and does account for the diversity of life and the proper function of the biological entity and all of its organs you must agree that the brain (cognitive faculties) must function normatively. (For example you would not say that the brain of a Down's Syndrome Baby functioned normatively and therefore would, under nature's rules, be selected out, according to your theory). However, natural selection does not select for truth but rather for survival benefit. You would agree? So my question to you is, "If our brains developed for survival skill and not truth (in fact truth may be a limiter against survival), then how is it logical to believe anything is true?" And I would ask, "If the brain must function normatively (as it was designed to function) to understand the universe arounds factually and truthfully, why would assert the brain developed to function normatively from an evolutionary standpoint? Remember the universe evolved and biological evolution developes mindlessly, purposelessly, remorselessly, and pitilessly. Evolution does not entertain output of species. It selects for surviival. That is what your worldview teaches. What warrant can you offer that you can feel confident that anything you believe is true, as an evolutionist? Does logic exist...then warrant it. Does rational thought exist....then warrrant it. Does mind exist...then account for it epistemically. Give us a reason to believe what you believe. Does reason exist....then warrant it for us.
Where can be found the dictionary containing this definition?