I believe in the conceptual framework of evolution as described by Darwin. Where I disagree is with the modern biology addenda, connected to randomness and chance; mutations. The main reason for my disagreement with the latter, is statistics is a watered down version of science, compared to rational science like was done by Darwin.
When one creates a rational theory to describe a phenomena, such as Einstein's theories of relativity, you reason it through, solve the equations and then run experiments. All the data points need to touch the curve when you do experiments. If there are any data points that do not touch, then the theory needs to be revised to include these.
With statistical modeling, none of the data has to touch the curve, since the method is built on fudge factors; margins of error. In this case, instead of starting with logic, like a rational theory, in statistical modeling you do the experiments first, without a theory, draw the best fit curve through the data and then develop theory, afterwards, which then does not have to touch the data points, except through the margins of error. This is watered down standard compared to rational modeling.
Darwin used a rational approach, when he formulated his theory of natural selection. It was based on observation and putting his theory to the test. He did not use the water down standard of modern biology, which is now be pushed as being equal to reason.
To give you an idea of how watered down this method can become and still be called science, there is area of statistics modeling called risk analysis. In this case, correlations, for example, small children are vulnerable to COVID, you only have to have 1 good data point in 1000, to be a considered a good statistical risk correlation. Talk about watered down.
Risk analysis will ignore the other 999 healthy children, who do not apply. Everyone is suppose to act as though 1in 1000 is rational. The term risk, draws in the emotion of fear, to help the brain become less rational, so it can accept this irrational proposition. All the mothers are worried for their children's safety and will comply to the irrational fear. Politicians like this since they do not have to think or reason as deep to get compliance.
The current version of evolution, is playing a similar game, of claiming infallibly, with a theory where the data does not even have to touch the curve, due to the built in fudge factoring implied by its approach. At the same time, it does not allow Creationism to use the same watered down standard. If none of the data points of Creationism reason, then why not also use fudge factors, like the science status quo.
Maybe someone can explain to us how fudge factors can make any theory better than rational? Statistics provide too many emotional excuses for why the theory should not be revised and updated, if one tries to use the rational standard, of perfect data fit.
