I know more about the the subject than you think. Your assumption to the contrary shows your prejudice that anyone who does not share your naturalistic conclusions must be ignorant.
Bull puckey you can't. What do you think the genome projects are all about? They solidified the evolutionary relationships first determined through morphology.
The genome project can only tell you what the genes do today. It cannot tell you how they became so arranged.
Morphology only show similarity in design, not how that similarity came about. I can use the same technique to discuss car design but no one would argue that is was proof of natural evolution in the auto industry.
I stand by my statement that natural evolution is untestable until you can demonstrate a test that will repoduce the creation of a new species.
And, as for your "science != natural science" crapola, science follows the scientific method.
But natural evolution does not follow the scientific method because it is untestable and unrepeatable.
Praying for Divine revelation , regardless of whether or not it actually imparts knowledge, is not science, natural or not.
But science = knowledge. The natural sciences err when they claim that they are the only true science.
Then prove it by not uttering such stupid comments.
The genome project can only tell you what the genes do today. It cannot tell you how they became so arranged.
Bull Puckey again. And you said you knew about this subject. Genes contain fossilized retroviral insertions. What this means is that, sometime in the past, a virus got its genetic material tangled up in a gene at a particular location. To make a long story short, critters with the same insertion will be related (the odds of it happening exactly the same way twice are astronomical). Using these retroviral insertions, researchers have been able to clarify some aspects of the tree of life and to confirm others.
Now, what were you saying about "knowing more about this subject than I think?"
Evolution is not science, since it is not dealing with facts but interpretion of those facts within a paradigm they have not established as even possible.
If life cannot come from non-life, then evolution is a false paradigm.