NAL (from the Atheist Experience) has made an astonishing assertion:
The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly.This is a brilliant escape hatch. I keep asking for observed evidence that would support Darwinism and all I get is references to the fossil record and assumptions that natural selection and mutations could over time cause lizards to turn into birds. I mean, hey, after all, mice evolve thicker fur over time!
So I'm gratified to see this admission. Science requires observing stuff happen, experimenting on it, and then trying to draw justified conclusions based on those observations. Maybe others disagree, but hey, NAL has an atheist blog and is apparently among the most fundamentalist of atheists! What do you got?
And it's great that NAL and I both agree that Darwinism is unscientific. It's always nice to find common ground.