It should be obvious, but certainly isn’t, that the question of ‘evolution’ isn’t a fully scientific one: look at the debate over time. It is not at all like those in other fields of science where, by and large, the issues are settled by theoretical/evidentiary procedures. The case of string theory of late may or may not be a part of the traditional standard, but the reason would be the lack of…well, theoretical/evidentiary procedures!
It is hard for scientists and those who found their thinking here on science to accept this, but the conclusion is hard to avoid. There are some obvious reasons ‘evolution’ stands out here: first, the lack of evidence, and confusion over what ‘evidence’ means, haunt all discussions. Do we make claims about evolutionary outcomes? Yes, but where is the evidence? We should think in terms of what the ‘evidence’ really means. It is analogous to weather observation: it requires an immense apparatus of distributed observation posts spread over a large geographical region. Evolution would require a similar scale, and it gets worse: that kind of apparatus over long eras of time. Clearly the issue with evolution therefore is the completely different observational context: we have a right in the name of science to claim that ‘observing’ evolution is in practice impossible. We can observe evolutionary sequences, to be sure, or infer their rough continuity, but we can’t so easily claim to explain the dynamic or mechanism behind that. This is why ‘natural selection’ is so nervously defended: it is a fantasy that allows the claims of science to be made at all.
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap2_2_1.htm: The Limits of Observation
But, no matter how many times you try to bring some reason to the discussion here the darwinian belief system is obsessively reiterated to reestablish the basic delusion. As Kant suggested that occurs when the foundation of a field contains metaphysical x’s or unknowns that provoke dialectical antinomies. We see at once how this is effecting evolutionary discussions: the concept of an organism is itself a difficult concept, not at all the same as the definition of a massive body. We may in fact be unable to specify such a thing because of its larger dimensional reality.
But in general the field of biology is filled with some of the classic antinomies: the case of human evolution being a case in point: we cannot determine without antinomial confusions whether the creature called man has a will, or a soul, or whether this is due to design (natural teleology) or purely mechanical method. Darwinism by taking hard stances on these questions has failed to solve the basics, and is confounded by endless debate which can never cease. It should be highly suspicious there that ‘man’ is an undefined metaphysical nebulosity and that we can’t, as with ‘organism’ determine even its basic dimensionality. These and other related issues remind us that we can’t take the question of ‘science’ for granted in the complexities of life. But the stubborn dogma of the darwinian reductionists have completely obscured the nature of the subject under discussion.