This means Giberson and Falk can ignore the scientific problems with their theory. It also means they can ignore the history of thought, the history of the church, the philosophy of science, and the metaphysical foundation and motivations for evolution. Now I understand why they can be evolutionists.
Giberson and Falk first make it clear that the fact of evolution is unquestionable. They write that evolution "is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy." After all:
In the years since Darwin argued natural selection was the agent of creation, the evidence for evolution has become overwhelming. The fossil record has provided evidence of compelling transitional species such as whales with feet. The discovery of DNA now provides an irrefutable digital record of the relatedness of all living things. And even the physicists have cooperated by proving that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, providing plenty of time for evolution.
So why don't people come along peacefully and drink the Kool Aid? Giberson and Falk blame skeptics for sending the wrong message. The Discovery Institute, for instance,
calls on Christians to essentially choose between science and faith.
Such sentiment is unfortunately not merely common, but the consensus amongst evolutionists. They are conveniently naive of the big scientific problems, they misrepresent the evidence to the public, and spread falsehoods about skeptics.
But how does one correct such misrepresentations? For the debate is profoundly asymmetric. Evolution skeptics are keen to understand the evidence for and against evolution, who is saying what, why they are saying it, and so forth.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, are often ignorant of the implications of the scientific evidence and are equally out of touch with the debate. Oh also, they're teaching your children.