A new sort of “scientist,” the evolutionary biologist, has come on the scene.
Although the article tries to represent an unbiased tone, putting "scientist" in quotes shows the bias.
These folks are specifically dedicated to supporting and proving a theory. Previously science did not work that way. Scientists used to look for evidence of disproof, only accepting theories that prove unassailable.
These folks didn't show up until well afer the theory became commonly accepted, had proven unassailable. It happens in all theories. We have lots of scientists working within the current models of quantum theory, general relativity, and a whole host of other theories, in addition to those scientists who work within the current model of natural selection.
The auhor forgets that natural selection is 150 years old, and that Darwin based his work on others who far preceded his own. The inspiration I find most interesting is that natural selection is basically the 18th Century work of Adam Smith applied to animal populations.
Creationism and evolution are both effectively un-provable
In two different ways. In science NO THEORY is provable. A scientific theory is only model that attempts to explain the phenomena we see. A successful theory that has beaten out the others means it is the one model that SO FAR best explains the phenomena. Examples of that are the atomic theory (yes, atoms are "just a theory"), the germ theory of disease (yes, germs are "just a theory" and initial postulates of the theory were indeed wrong), and natural selection. Meanwhile, creationism claims absolute truth and cannot be disproven within its model.
Those three scientific theories were initially controversial as they stepped on some religious toes. For some strange reason, creationists only still have a problem with natural selection these days. I guess they look just way too dumb saying germs don't cause disease.
I don’t worry myself a great deal with this debate. To me, in my blissful ignorance, the basis of Darwin’s theory is survival of the fittest, not the origin of life. If I am correct in that, then man is at the top of the totem pole. His brain and use of tools, which he has greatly expanded, gives him dominance over all others with the possible exception of germs and bacteria. Even in that he is still far ahead of the game.
All this other environmental crap, like endangered species, is counter to Darwin’s theory on which they pretend to rely. In addition, that is what the Bible says, that man has dominance over the others. So, Darwin compliments the Bible rather than opposing it.
As far as God is concerned, proving God scientifically or philosophically is a fool’s errand. To prove God is to destroy God, by definition. A proof makes God finite and He is infinite. Case closed.