[freedumb2003]

In this case we have a historical theory (common descent by solely natural processes), not observational science, that is inconsistent with scientific evidence that tells us how evolutionary change occurs in nature. We have a lot of data from evolutionary biology and population genetics that clearly demonstrates that life is degrading (as actually observed, even if we restrict ourselves to beneficial mutations) and that significant innovation by chance mutations is out of the question.

Repeating talking points is not understanding science. Evolution is a stochastic process. And all science, by definition, is solely natural. The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.

[Liberty1970]

The idea of "life is degrading" states a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying scientific principles and represents complete scientific illiteracy.

So you would regard it as unscientific if someone pointed out your car is rusting? This is the philosophical corner that evolutionism is boxing itself into. Making absurd points to avoid the obvious. It is legitimate to evaluate whether a genome is evolving or devolving informationally, and denying that fact won't change how obvious it is to unbiased people.

[aruanan]

And all science, by definition, is solely natural.

The big error, though, is assuming that the sole source of knowledge is science.

[DannyTN]

"And all science, by definition, is solely natural."

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation.