Kevin Retard McCarthy is spewing more nonsense.
This punk will lie and lie, have his lies exposed and just continue to spew the same lies.
This time he wants to know of any specific examples of the weaknesses of evolutionism. Evolutionism is the untestable claim that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
1- It's grand claims are untestable and hide behind eons of time
2- It cannot be quantified
3- It cannot be measured- no one knows how many mutations it takes to get from one body plan to another
Those are 3 MAJOR weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
But Kevin does say something that is right- teach the evidence. Leave the philosophy out of it. Then you wouldn't have to teach ID, it flows from the pages of biology textbooks.
IOW teach BIOLOGY in BIOLOGY classrooms and leave the theory of evolution out of it. And those who would want to explore/ examine the theory have them try to develop testable hypotheses based on blind and undirected chemical processes, ie accumulations of genetic accidents.
It would also be nice if the teachers did away with the strawman that all who oppose the theory of evolution oppose any sort of change. IOW tell the students the truth about ID and baraminology
Kevin also sez:
There’s no such thing as ‘biological’ evolution and ‘chemical’ evolution. There is evolution. If there is a population of anything that can change over time, then it’s evolution. Whether that population be of humans or pre-biotic RNAs.
Kevin has some sort of god complex as he always thinks what he sez is the last word. Well Kevin, biological evolution refers to, well living organisms, and chemical evolution would refer to pre-biotic evolution, ie abiogenesis. And if you are going to define evolution so broadly as to include all change it pretty much makes the concept useless.
But anyway Kevin, if I get my say I am going to get a disclaimer read in biology classrooms stating that neither Intelligent Design nor YEC baraminology are anti-evolution (especially in the broad sense you use)- or maybe legislation to that effect.