I very much appreciate Ronn Johnson’s willingness to debate on this topic, and respect his right to hold whatever views he feels are correct. However, it was a painful experience for me to watch the debate.
There is one point in particular I will address with this post.
Ronn referred to Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Experimental Evolution research and was not impressed by the demonstrated ability for organisms to evolve. It amounted to a combined argument from personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.
In the first 50 years or so after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species the proponents of the theory had the burden of proof. It was a new theory, and all new theories must go through the rigorous process science demands to become accepted.
Today, the Theory has many independent lines of evidence converging on the same conclusion: evolution is a fact. It is one of the, if not the, most highly verified scientific theories ever.
As with any theory with massive explanatory power, there are debates in the scientific community about subtleties of mechanisms and their respective weights on outcomes.
There are two options if someone wants to claim evolution is not a fact today.
Ronn, you must prove that one of the above options is true. As a part of that, you would need to also discredit all of the fossil, DNA, chronology and geographic evidences, etc. You would need to show that ALL scientists are either villains hiding the truth from everyone and are well organized and competent enough at conspiracies to pull off the sham, or they are all incompetent in using a scientific method which does not reveal truth.
Until you do these things, you must realize that your denial of evolution is a purely faith-based position.
Good luck. I’ll be waiting for your response.
Josh Nankivel, iamSkeptic.com