Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

PaulGL:Evolution has nothing to do with gods or deities. Whether the supernatural exists or not would not alter the validity of the theory of common descent. Yes, when creationists argue that the Genesis account should be taken literally.In short, evolutionary theory isn't attacking theism. It makes no claims regarding the existence (or lack thereof) of deities.This makes comments like the one made by William Provine (professor of history and biology, Cornell University) especially egregious:"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hawkins:Are you quite sure you understand the philosophy of science? I'm an intelligent design proponent, but c'mon, to say stuff like "Over 99.99% existing species cannot be examined using ToE to see how they repeatedly being brought to existence from a single cell to its current form" is kinda silly.In the first place, there are plenty of ways to falsify the theory of evolution, from molecular biology to paleontology etc. I do agree that a number of biological observations are gradually being explained ad hoc by the current paradigm, but this doesn't mean the theory of evolution isn't falsifiable, because it is easily falsified.Secondly, the Darwinian theory doesn't say that all species independently evolved from a single cell. According to the modern evolutionary synthesis, multicellular life forms evolved from unicellular life forms, which later evolved into the animal species that we today (and plant, fungi, etc.). Your above statement seems to imply that the ToE suggests that all animals arose from a single cell, independently. This is not the case. A multicellular organism likely arose from a unicellular population, and this new organism then branched off into the species we see today.

What makes you think there is no evidence for the evolution of all species?

Molecular phylogenetics, of course. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Am I the only one who has noticed that in an attempt to disregard the evidence for common descent, creationists (especially the young-earth creationists) are now trying to re-define science?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.