Shermana said:
No my intent is to show that the concept of incremental changes in direct relation to the subject matter of the Review is bogus.
What do you hope to gain from that since even if Dr. Stuart is right, he knows that there is still tons of evidence that reasonably proves that common descent is true? If Dr. Stuart is not bothered by his own evidence as far as the acceptance of common descent is concerned, why should anyone else be bothered by it?
If you are not promoting creationism, what else could you possibly be promoting?
Do you believe that theistic evolutionists are true Christians? If so, then common descent should not matter to you since millions of theistic evolutionists accept it.
Let's use some simple logic here. Let's call the claim that common descent is true Proposition A, PA for short. Let's call the claim that incremental changes do not account for evolution Proposition B, PB for short. If PB is true, that by no means reasonably proves that PA is false since even if PB is true, lots of science adds significant support to PA.
Using similar logic, it can successfully be argued that even if creationism is true, that would not come anywhere near reasonably proving that a God inspired the Bible. Most skeptics would still be skeptics even if most scientists one day said that it is probable that a God exists. In addition, if that happened, none of the billions of non-Christians theists would accept Christianity since they already believe in God. So, you are working with a very, very small group of people in the world who have any chance of being influenced by anything that you say.
It is important to note that many if not the majority of people who reject Christianity do so primarily because of historical, philosophical, and moral issues, not scientific issues.
A Wikipedia article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent give lots of evidence that supports common descent. Since much of the evidence is from different scientific disciplines, that means that common descent does not largely depend upon one or two disciplines, an example being incremental changes.
How are you in a position to judge the opinions of over 99'% of experts? Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism, and a good percentage of them accept the widely rejected global flood theory, and the young earth theory.
Would you like to present an academic paper against common descent for peer review to an academic journal?
Research has shown that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.
