[Right Wing Professor]

Naturalistic evolution can only posit what might have happened (I am talking here about the why of evolution, not the demonstration that there has been a sequence of species), it cannot show that it actually did. It might very well have happened the way they explain it but evolutionist go beyond the proper limits of sciences to insist that it must have. Where evolution differs from the other sciences is that it is trying to explain what happened in the past rather than what happens now and can be repeated.

Nonsense. It can demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, what did happen. And evolution is happening in the present, and can be repeated.

[Petrosius]

Silber should stick to philosophy. He doesn't understand biology.

[Evolution] can demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, what did happen.

It is not that Dr. Silber does not understand biology but that the evolutionists do not understand epistemology. The empirical natural sciences can present experiments in which certain actions are observed. Thus in chemistry I can observe the result of combining two elements, in physics I can observe the laws of thermodynamics, in biology I can observe the functions of the various organs, etc. This observation is just not possible with evolution. The conclusions of natural evolution are the result of inductive reasoning and do not have the same logical validity as deductive reasoning. The evolutionists should remember this limitation when presenting their conclusions which in fact are no more than conjectures.