Notice that in the following course info from Indiana University, evolution is presented as absolute, unquestioned fact! From INTRODUCTION TO EVOLUTION :
“there are no empirical observations of life, living or extinct, that evolution cannot explain, and there is no evidence against evolution.”
“There are also many independent lines of evidence that are consistent with natural selection as the main mechanism of evolution. There is NO observed evidence against this as a working mechanism for evolution. Efforts by some to point out “evidence against evolution” always turn out, under critical examination, to be totally without merit. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (or, more precisely, the Theory of Natural Selection), therefore, holds the high status of near certainty: it is a scientific theory.”
“In short, evolution as a real phenomenon is scientifically solid; it is a scientifically demonstrated fact; and the scientific theory for how evolution happens is so well documented by the evidence that this explanation is as close to a scientific fact as any explanation can be.”
First note that hundreds of scientist have signed the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”
And now let’s see what a real working scientist has to say about this. Excerpts from “A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution” (nb: that blog has over 200k views and nearly 500 comments!):
Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world, and he was said the following:
Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.
“… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living,”
“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you.”
“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”“
“But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.“