“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
What evidence is being misinterpreted?
What methodology is flawed, and how so?
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).Some Evolutionists disagree with Darwin: From soup to cells — the origin of life
“What evidence is being misinterpreted?” [excerpt]All evidence is interpreted by Evolutionists to fit the Evolutionary framework, to the point that often the answer precedes the question. (tail wagging the dog)
“What methodology is flawed, and how so?” [excerpt]The methodology used by Evolutionists is usually methodological naturalism.
In the end it boils down to what ‘we’ know [that is not necessarily verifiable] taking precedence over objectivity.A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt. […] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.
– Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery