Replies

...in four years, I had not been presented with a single shred of credible evidence that it had ever worked.

Well, I suppose it would have been nice to have another degree under one's belt. But you eschewed that pursuit, and it would seem on reasonable grounds.

Perhaps you would agree with an observation from "my friend, the astrophysicist," Attila Grandpierre (in "Fundamental Complexity Measures of Life," in Divine Acton and Natural Selection: Science, Faith, and Evolution, 2008:

It becomes more and more clear that Darwinian theory is so logically flabby that it can "explain" anything by subtly changing the terms of the debate. Evolutionary theory can show only that systems of functions may evolve in a changing environment, but does not explain how the individual cell selects from the astronomically large domain of biological possibilities. Evolutionary theory concerns only the historical life forms appearing on earth. It considers only a part of biological phenomena, instead of working out the general theory of biological processes and deriving the more special phenomena from the more general laws as it is possible [to do] in physics.... These arguments indicate that selection is not the cause but the result of biological organization.

BTW, my friend is not a fan of "intelligent design."

Thanks so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!