So if we teach students that the origin of species on Earth is the result of natural selection and random mutations from a common ancestor we are, according to you, teaching something that is evidentially unjustifiable.
No. I'm saying that it is evidentially unjustified to say that this says or means that they were not designed or that none of them are designed (even while excluding the ones that we know were designed).
Well if they are entirely the product of natural selection and random mutation (as taught) they cannot be the product of non-random intelligent design can they?
That the species we know of
can be explained by RM+NS doesn't suggest that every species has necessarily come about that way.
What is taught is that the diversity of life can be suffiecienty explained by evolution, not that the enitirety of species are the product of RM+NS alone.
The slight difference, because of the result of induction, is one of the reasons that it is evidentially unjustified to claim that design has been refuted.
I think you go too far to say that being explainable by evolution necessitates that it is not designed.
But this one point has been drug out too far...
™ Version 4.2
(1)