A Detailed Process- Responding to Kevin R McCarthy's Spewage

-
Kevin has a post titled A Detailed Process. He sez:

Let me explain something to you. I know you don’t get this, so I will be very clear. Every single time you ask the question, “Well how did X appear?” or ‘How did evolution make Y?” you are really doing three things.

First, you are crafting an argument from ignorance. If any biologist or scientist (or me for that matter) cannot answer your question (for example, how did new body plans appear in the Cambrian), that does not mean that evolution has failed as a theory and that creationism/ID is correct. ”Don’t know” means “don’t know”. We also don’t know how gravity is created, but I don’t see you demanding that we teach the controversy on that..

OK wait. If "you don't know", and we know that you don't, the how can you even have a theory? How is yours not an argument from ignorance if all you can say is "it evolved but we don't know how"?

As for gravity, well your position has nothing to say about it beyond what Hawking said "it just is the way it is". IOW they don't teach gravity was farted from the blind watchmaker's ass.

Kevin's third point is:

Three, will your opinion change if a response is given to you? Ask yourself if a peer-reviewed paper is given to you that answers the question you asked, will you really totally reject your chosen notion? If you don’t, then why are you asking this question? Or, will you, as has been my experience over the last 3 decades, move the goal post or argue that it really doesn’t explain the point you were making.

My opinion would change if you could show us the science behind unguided evolution. Show us that natural selection can actually do something to warrant the "designer mimic" designation.

So how about it Kevin? Do you have any science wrt unguided evolution or are you still in denial that biological evolution is unguided, ie willfully ignorant?

Ya see Kevin, the truth is your position has nothing but circumstantial evidence and the weight of personal bias. It is devoid of details and as such totally untestable- remember it is your position which is based on small incremntal steps, not ID. Heck we know Stonehenge was designed and can't give any details as to how it was constructed.

So Kevin admits that his position is based and relies on our ignorance. It is the ultimate argument from ignorance because all he or any evo can say is "we don't know" when asked how something evolved.