How Anti-Science Forces Thrive On Facebook - BuzzFeed News

Indeed, gone are the days when these types of stories would struggle for traction in a media landscape dominated by a few television networks, newspapers, and radio stations. Now anyone on Facebook can take their snake oil straight to the masses — and their message is reverberating in the highest levels of government. Vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who says he’s in touch with Trump about a “vaccine safety commission,” recently announced a $100,000 “challenge” to prove their safety. Andrew Wakefield, who helped start the anti-vaccine movement with a fraudulent 1998 study that linked vaccines to autism, showed up at an inaugural ball. The president has called climate change a “hoax” and appointed a skeptic to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pseudoscience is closer than ever to the mainstream.

How Anti-Science Forces Thrive On Facebook - BuzzFeed News

Can't compete with science, we'll just ignore it (Pt 2)

Again I apologize for the for mating.  Without going into the HTML and changing the coding manually line by line, this is the mess that arises.  Seems I have imported and errant code somewhere.

As I stated prior, I started out initially to troll. I then focused in on one commenter as he seemed genuine and avoided religious mumbo-jumbo.  God-of-the-gaps is always present in these types of discussions but my adversary did not make it the focus of our discussion.  Hopefully I laid out some good science in my responses.

The juicy bits,,,                      

In the initial exchange, Chris asked for "proof" of evolution.  I decided to throw my two-cents worth just to see the reaction.  Either he is seriously deluded or does not utilize the medical profession.  One need to look no further than a standard medicine cabinet for "proof" - antibiotic resistance!

By 1947, what was once considered a "miracle drug" - penicillin, the first resistant strain of staph was discovered.  By the 1960s, 80% of staph isolates were resistant; now, virtually all the strains are resistant to penicillin.  A recent study on resistance, 

Bacteria that are susceptible to antibiotics can survive when enough resistant cells around them are expressing an antibiotic-deactivating factor. This new take on how the microbial context can compromise antibiotic therapy was published by a team of microbiologists from the University of Groningen microbiologists, together with colleagues from San Diego, in the journal PLOS Biology on 27 December. 

The entire paper is summed up nicely in a short video clip of a crucial experiment in the study. We see Staphylococci bacteria, which have been labelled with a green fluorescent protein, expressing a resistance gene for the antibiotic chloramphenicol. Next to them are black Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria that do not have the resistance gene. In a medium containing the antibiotic, the green cells begin to grow and divide whereas the non-resistant black cells don't. After a time, individual black cells begin to divide and they even outgrow their green companions.

 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/state/images/thanks_penicillin_sm.jpg

But, I could have used one of many examples of evolution in action -  that is observable - but my personal favorite is the Kettlewell Peppered Moth Experiment.  [Darwin's Finches is the classic example and is still under study::  Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches and How Darwin’s finches got their beaks as well as two recent studies involving E. Coli - here and here.]  I like Kettlewell as it has generated controversy and criticism but in the end, it still stands.  True to form, Chris took the bait.

One notion I have found with creationists such as Chris, they do not follow the science or narrative behind the science to the end-point. In other words, creationists tend to only go so far as to confirm their preconceived ideas(s).  Chris demonstrates this well as highlighted above.  Also the aftermath concerning the Peppered moth demonstrates this; research has continued beyond the initial findings and criticisms.  They focus in on one flaw (or flaws - remember Kettlewell's paper was published the 50's) in the experiment's design and deem the whole shebang a fraud.

Let's focus in on that last paragraph for a second.  And for the record, I am primarily interested in the creationist response,,,

First were did this criticism arise?  As far as I can tell, either from John Morris of Institute of Creation Research in 1999,

And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell's compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.

or from ID advocate Jonathan Wells in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution.  He argues that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were exaggerated, distorted, or were patently false. Wells said that this shows that evolution conflicts with the evidence.

The following chapters compare the icons of evolution with published scientific evidence, and reveal that much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution. If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it science, or myth?

Jerry Coyne has a review of Wells' book is here.

It is telling that, although Wells repeatedly attacks evolution, he gives no hint of his own ideas about the origin and development of life. There is good reason for this. As one learns from his website sermon, Evolution by Design, Wells believes that "the human species was planned before life began, and that the history of life is the record of how this plan was implemented". To Wells, the fossil record does not represent a continuum of ancestry, but a succession of creations by the Intelligent Designer, with each species carefully devised to nurture the next product of creation up to the final goal, humans.
,,,
Finally, Wells's main theme about the collusion of evolutionary biologists is simply wrong. Authors of some biology texts may occasionally be sloppy, or slow to incorporate new research, but they are not duplicitous. And, far from representing a conspiracy, it is invariably evolutionists (including myself) who have noted problems with some classic icons of evolution. Wells has it backwards. It is creationists like him who are conspiring to purge evolution from American education. They hide their own differences about issues such as the fossil record and the age of the Earth, they pretend to be disinterested seekers after truth, they fail to do their own scientific research, and, like Wells, they avoid at all costs revealing their own theories about the history of life. Icons is exactly as even-handed and intellectually honest as one would expect from someone whose "prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism".

It wasn't until 2002 that this bogus argument against Kettlewell gained some steam when science writer Judith Hooper discussed it in her book, Of Moths and Men.  While trashing Kettlewell's methodology, she implied that Kettlewell and his colleagues committed fraud or made errors.  

According to one review by Bryan Clarke, Hooper's book was, "a treasury of insinuations worthy of an unscrupulous newspaper".  David Rudge has also examined the same records which Hooper's argument is based and comes to similar conclusion as Clarke.

Did Kettlewell commit fraud? While we can never know for certain, the foregoing demonstrates that Hooper (2002) does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation. In retrospect, the multiple historiographic problems of Hooper’s approach to this episode seem obvious. She decided in advance that she wanted to tell an entomological “whodunnit” story regardless of whether fraud had actually been committed (Coyne, 2002). Her research consisted of a careful search through archives and published documents to exhaustively list questionable assumptions, methodological errors and interpretive problems associated with Kettlewell’s investigations, in order to make them appear suspect (pp. xviii–xix, 216–18, 259–71),,, In lieu of any direct evidence, she draws attention to how the possibility that Kettlewell committed fraud, and that his colleagues at Oxford may have engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth, might account for these discrepancies. She repeatedly cites quotations from letters and published documents that, out of context, might be interpreted as supporting the conspiracy theory. In the multiple instances where the evidence directly contradicts the conspiracy theory, she either ignores the evidence, or suggests the author was insincere and had ulterior motives for lying.  Beyond all this, as noted above, the interpretive framework she provides rests on several fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of science.

So as you can see the "fake photos therefore fraud" notion is not so simple.  This is what I mean by Chris and his ilk not following science, or the narrative behind it, to its end-point.  As Rudge notes, "[t]he fact that the authors of these critical publications have their own agenda, or even recognition that to get published, a premium is placed upon how new results represent an advance on previous work (which tends to emphasize a few points of difference, while minimizing broad areas of agreement) seems never to have occurred to her. "  Nor did that fact occur to Chris.

One point to note, while Rudge speaks of "new results" advancing on previous work.  There is no new work by Hooper, just criticism.  As far as I can tell neither Hooper, Wells, nor Morris designed a study to counter Kettlewell's experiment.  Kettlewell is from the 50s.  Subsequent criticisms followed and more studies where done.  Those studies, and others like them, are totally ignored or in AiG's case, poo-poo'd away because it doesn't match their definition of what evolution is.  Can't compete with science, we'll just ignore it.

The better you eat, the better you will feel

So today, actually 2-days ago now, Vani Hari (Orac's take on Hamblin's screed) re-highlighted this article/recipe for what she calls a "detox" salad based on the ingredient cilantro and the added fiber of lentils. (Eat a bowl of lentils, sprouted or even curried and see what happens.)   I'm not going to get into the alleged science of cilantro, sadly it is above my pay grade, but the notion of "detoxing" the Food Babe way is pure bunkem; well, any form of "detoxing" is.  (This is the primary study that is used to support this notion of "detox" but yet I can find no other studies that show that cilantro can cause heavy metals to be excreted as her claim.)

Like any food recommendation (eg. the alkaline diet), there is nothing with this salad, or in general, Hari's over-all diet recommendation(s) that is dangerous per se unless you go to extremes.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to eat well or do away with certain foods one deems bad. But it becomes serious when one becomes so rigid with their food they jeopardize their financial well-being, health, and relationships with other people.

That is what Hari preaches, superior health by restricting entire food groups without a medical reason or even a valid scientific explanation.  Hell, Hari can't even offer a valid reason as she has no training or related experience in any scientific field.  Hari, I think, is a symptom of a larger problem, it just seems like nothing is ever "pure" enough.  And this moralizing of food has deep roots, starting with a bite from that fruit in Eden. Through that simple act, we think of foods as “good” or “bad,” “sinful” or “natural.”

1]  "Detox", as used by Hari and others of her ilk, is a marketing term (see also). A cleansing and purification ritual minus some of the religious bullshit.  Think MMS, remember Jim Humble of G2C fame is a former Scientologist, instead of purging Thetans, he is purging unwanted "toxins".  The same holds true for "detox" products.  As SBP notes, "So use the word 'toxin', not sin, and call the ritual a 'detox' – and suddenly you’ve given your treatment a veneer of what sounds scientific."  [As suggested to me, Alan Levinovitz in his book The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat, "argues that many claims about the right way to eat are more religious in nature than scientific, even if the language used to promote a particular claim has evolved."]

To an author like Levinovitz, who has spent countless hours working to understand the meaning and significance behind the religious narratives passed down over time, dietary claims demonstrate an uncanny similarity. He even compares them to how flood myths have recurred in a variety of cultures. He attempts to understand them in a historical context, ultimately raising serious concerns about their veracity. He wonders if our acceptance of many of them are akin to reading flood myths like a weather report rather than as a metaphor for cleansing and divine punishment.

2]  In Hari's case heavy metal toxicity has specific symptoms, not that feeling you get after eating too much.  In the case of drugs or alcohol, it can be an emergency medical situation.  What Hari is touting has no basis in reality.

What’s popularly called a “detox” today has nothing to do with actual medical detoxification. In the setting of real medicine, detoxification means treatments for dangerous levels of drugs, alcohol, or poisons, like heavy metals. Real detoxification is a treatment for a medical emergency, when a poisoning may be life-threatening. Real detoxification isn’t something you contemplate based on a menu. You don’t order real detoxification treatments at juice bar, and it’s not delivered in smoothie format.

Fake detox, the kind you find in magazines, and sold in pharmacies, juice bars, and health food stores, is make-believe medicine. The use of the term “toxin” in this context is meaningless. There are no toxins named, because there’s no evidence that these treatments do anything at all, but it sounds just scientific enough to be plausible.

3]  "'Detox' is based on an outdated notion of 'autointoxication.' Clean out the bowels, went the theory, and you could cure any illness"; by today's woo standards the more active "treatment" goes by the name colonic hydrotherapy. "Science discarded autointoxication in the early 1900’s as we gained a better understanding of anatomy, physiology, and the true cause of disease." Yet the term persists today as the woo-meisters ignore science to make the all-mighty buck.

As noted above, "detox diets" or foods, such as Hari's salad, are for the most part harmless as one is basically increasing fiber intake; although the consumption of some commercial products have had serious consequences. 

"The complementary medicine market is very popular in the UK and the concept of the new-year 'detox' with all-natural products is appealing to those less concerned with evidence-based medicine and more with complementary medicine," say the medics in their write-up.

"Excessive water intake as a way of 'purifying and cleansing' the body is also a popular regime with the belief that harmful waste products can thus be washed from the body."

However, they warn that "despite marketing suggesting otherwise, all-natural products are not without side-effects".

As Wiki notes, "[i]In cases where a person suffers from a disease, belief in the efficacy of a detox diet can result in delay or failure to seek effective treatment."  Therein lays the problem, taken to the extreme of the Gerson plan for example, it does kill - just ask Jess Ainscough (aka the Wellness Warrior).

Let’s review a bit about just what the Gerson therapy is. It’s a so-called “nutritional” therapy for cancer that involves large quantities of fruit and vegetable juices, raw liver, and “detoxification” with frequent coffee enemas. Indeed, the Gerson protocol was a precursor to the more commonly discussed and now more famous Gonzalez protocol (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Grafted onto the therapy by his daughter Charlotte since Max Gerson’s death are other forms of woo, such as liver extract injections, ozone enemas, “live cell therapy,” thyroid tablets, castor oil enemas, clay packs, laetrile, and “vaccines” made from influenza virus and killed Staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Gerson’s “evidence” in the form of his case series was examined by the National Cancer Institute back in the 1950s,,,

4]  Unless you are having a body systems failure (skin, kidneys, lymphatic system, gastrointestinal system, and liver), we humans have a pretty sophisticated internal detoxification system.  You're going to need more than a "cilantro salad" to fix what may ail ya.  In other words, if you think your kidneys or liver aren't pulling their weight, you don't need a detox salad, you need to see a doctor.

http://www.statsguy.co.uk/detox-its-all-a-con/

5]  When it comes to simple dietary changes, there’s little evidence of harm. Eating more quinoa and kale (maybe spinach instead), and less processed and refined foods is reasonable dietary advice for everyone. But, according to Klein and Kiat,

To the best of our knowledge, no rigorous clinical investigations of detox diets have been conducted. The handful of studies that have been published suffer from significant methodological limitations including small sample sizes, sampling bias, lack of control groups, reliance on self-report and qualitative rather than quantitative measurements.

,,,
At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management
or toxin elimination (97,98). Considering the financial costs to consumers, unsubstantiated claims and potential health risks of detox products, they should be discouraged by health professionals and subject to independent regulatory review and monitoring. It is hoped that this review will encourage systematic evaluations of commercial detox diets, so that an evidence base can be established to inform future legislation.

Perhaps an important question to ask is why are detox diets so appealing? The seductive power of detox diets presumably lies in their promise of purification and redemption, which are ideals that are deep-rooted in human psychology. These diets, of course, are highly reminiscent of the religious fasts that have been popular throughout human history. It would be useful for future studies to examine the psychological aspects of detox diets and investigate why people are drawn to extreme diets that have no proven benefits. Unfortunately, equating food with sin, guilt and contamination is likely to set up an unhealthy relationship with nutrition. There is no doubt that sustained healthy habits are of greater longterm value than the quick fixes offered by commercial detox diets.

6]  If you want to cleanse your wallet, "detox" is the way to go.  While Hari's recipe wont do jack-shit and only cost you the price of the ingredients, alternative medicine’s idea of "detox" could kill you.  It definitely will cost you money.  As Brian Dunning points out,

Anyone interested in detoxifying their body might think about paying a little more attention to their body and less attention to the people trying to get their money. The body already has nature's most effective detoxification system. It's called the liver. The liver changes the chemical structure of foreign compounds so they can be filtered out of the blood by the kidneys, which then excrete them in the urine. I am left wondering why the alternative practitioners never mention this option to their customers. It's all-natural and proven effective. Is it ironic that the only people who will help you manage this all-natural option are the medical doctors? Certainly your naturopath won't. He wants to sell you some klunky half-legal hardware.

Why is it that so many people are more comfortable self-medicating for conditions that exist only in advertisements, than they are simply taking their doctor's advice? It's because doctors are burdened with the need to actually practice medicine. They won't hide bad news from you or make up easy answers to please you. But that's what people want: The easy answers promised by advertisements and alternative practitioners. They want the fantasy of being in complete personal control of what goes on inside their bodies. A doctor won't lie to you and say that a handful of herbal detoxification pills will cure anything that's wrong with you; but since that's the solution many people want, there's always someone willing to sell it.

So yet again, what Hari has endorsed is a notion with no basis in science. She's relying on fear and uses "chemicals" as a dirty word, ignoring the fact that everything (including water) is a chemical.  To Hari and her ilk, including her "Food Babe Army", the toxins remain unspecified and they appropriate the legitimate medical concept of detoxification in their purification ritual.  Any diet or dietary restriction that causes a person to be unable to celebrate and socialize with food comfortably is going too far.  Don’t make food the most important focus of your life.



One final thought,  What exactly is she eating that she constantly needs detoxing from? If she does as she preaches, she shouldn't need a detox. Unless she cheats. And whose fault is that,,,hmmm?

Can't compete with science, we'll just ignore it (Pt 1)

Please excuse the formatting as blogger or my puter were having fits for some reason,,, I will fix it later!!

What got things rolling,

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/posts/1360877547275931

My initial intention was to be a bit of a troll as my focus was on Ham's equating atheism to religion via evolution as well as his false equivalency of evolution to abiogenesis  It didn't quite turn out that way.  And to save my brain cells, I stayed focused on one "commenter" to prevent an overwhelming Gish gallop of ideas.  (Don't ask how that went!)

Although Ham opened the door to where I wanted the conversation to go, "Ask evolutionists for the best evidence of evolution - they usually cite speciation, which has nothing to do with their molecules-to-man belief,"  I wasn't sure if that is where we would end up.  You see I have a keen interest in the Kettlewell Peppered Moth experiment and its aftermath but I also wanted to demonstrated three points.  Other studies of interest::  E. coli - Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site and Watch Evolution Occur Before Your Eyes

As to the aftermath, scientific scrutiny is expected.  What followed was creationists leaping on Coyne's criticism which lead to further study (Melanism gene found in peppered moth and The peppered moth story is solid, for example. (If you notice, Coyne's progression in accepting the Peppered Moth narrative is very similar to Bill Nye's  support of GM technology.  Nye was not a GM technology supporter but with further education on the matter he has become such.)

Coyne's criticism led to the subsequent follow-up experiment by Majerus with publication by Wood et al.  This past year, van't Hof et al found the gene they had been looking for.

For decades we’ve known that the difference between the carbonaria and typica forms was due to change at a single gene, for genetic crosses showed a nice Mendelian segregation, with carbonaria behaving as a dominant allele. But we didn’t know the exact gene involved, although in recent years it was narrowed down to a 400,000-base section of the moth’s genome. Although the fact that this is a case of evolution by natural selection doesn’t depend on knowing the exact gene involved, to get the complete story from gene to color to the ecological forces involved (bird predation), it would be nice to know what that gene is and what it does.

A big group of researchers has now reported in Nature that they found the gene. The paper is by Arjen E. van’t Hof et al. (reference below, sadly, no free download), and identifies the gene causing the moth color difference as cortex, a well-known gene that’s been studied in fruit flies (Drosophila). A companion paper in the same issue by Nicola Nadeau et al. (reference below, also behind a paywall) shows that mutations at cortex are involved in patterning and mimicry in many species of Lepidoptera. I won’t describe that paper in detail, as it’s only tangentially relevant here.

One, yes some creationists are under-educated in regards to evolution, such as homeschooling.  This posting is not directed toward them per se.  This posting is directed towards those that are culpably ignorant, such as Ken Ham and my adversary.  Those that choose to ignore the evidence for some gain and continue to spread the lies.

It is a point I have spoken to before concerning Ham. While it is an over simplified line of reasoning, one can not deny evolution but yet accept the benefits from modern medicine,,, Sorry you lose!  (Kent Hovind is a mater at this point)  Hell, you can't even be a very good doctor without an understanding of evolution.

Within medicine there is a standard of care that is developed by the medical community, but mostly driven by the recognized experts in their field synthesizing available evidence and experience. For the average physician in private practice, in order to be minimally competent they need to understand clinical decision-making and the current standard of care as it applies to their specialty. For procedure-based specialties, like surgeons, they also need to be technically competent. None of this requires an understanding of the science behind medicine.

Physicians who practice in this manner are essentially behaving like technicians, not scientists. They have the requisite fund of knowledge and know what practices are required in given situations. The more procedure-based a practice is, the more a physician can get away with this level of practice, as their technical skills comprise a larger portion of their daily practice.

However, while I think you can get to a level of minimal competence practicing in this fashion (cook-book style, following standards of care without necessarily understanding how they came about), this level of practice results in a mediocre clinician. This is because it is essential to understand scientific principles in order to be a fully functional clinician. Again I will break this down into two areas.

Two, there is no science in creationism, it is all criticism and opinion as demonstrated by my adversary.  While anyone who knows me knows I am a citation freak, you will not find one citation in the entire sub-thread besides mine.  (In fact I don't think there is a citation in the entire thread but mine up to the time I started writing.)  While there are references made to AiG, their material falls under the same determination with the added distinction of NOT being peer reviewed.

These quotes also reveal what creationism truly is – a bible-based faith. It is not science, it is not based on evidence, reason, or critical thinking. It is based entirely on faith in one particular interpretation of the Christian bible.

Ham, here, is at least being honest in that regard. It does also come off also as a surrender – Ham and other creationists now know they are not going to win against evolution in the arena of science. There is a simple reason for this – evolution is reality and creation is mythology. The fact that life on earth is the product of organic evolution and that all life shares common ancestry has been established by a mountain of evidence and is scientifically indisputable. Fighting against the evidence in the long term is a losing strategy.
,,,
This frames their world-view nicely – it is not about evidence or logic, it is about authority. The debate is framed as God’s authority vs man’s authority, not in terms of logic or evidence. They set up a false dichotomy – evolution or God. I don’t know if this framing is deliberately manipulative, or if they simply cannot see past the assumptions of their own world-view.

And finally. Creationists, when they don't like the direction a conversation is going, will take their ball and go home.  In other words, when faced with science, they twist and squirm to get away from it.  As you will see my adversary did just that when presented with the Peppered Moth.  Another comment attempted to "discredit" the Royal Academy of Sciences when presented evidence from such instead of pointing to where the science was wrong; never mind that he out right lied.

At the recent Royal Academy of Sciences in London, XXX, the world's leading Neo-Darwinians came together to discuss the latest findings in the origins of biological life. And they were clear, Darwinianism - even Neo-Darwinianism has now been conclusively disproven in regards to the origins of biological life. Thus even the world's leading Evolutionists are now in agreement that evolution is a failed theory...And as they said at their meeting, Intelligent Design is the only possible answer to the vast complexities of biological life. So Creationists have been proven correct by science...For those of you who continue to hold on to what has now been proven to be a failed theory, you can only do so through faith...That makes any belief in evolutionary theory a religion by definition...

AiG is masterful at this.  When confronted with science they cannot refute, the revert back to "this is not the molecules-to-man evolution."  They misrepresent what Darwin's theory is, by twisting what it is not.

If the moth population truly shifts in response to change in environmental conditions—which Majerus’s work and another of study of similar moths in the polluted northeastern United States suggest—then the peppered moth story is “fine example of natural selection in action.” And with Majerus’s observations now confirming moths really do rest on trunks before sunrise and get gobbled up by birds early in the day, we even know the agent of natural selection, at least in England. But the peppered moth is not and never has been proof of “Darwinian evolution” in the molecules-to-man sense.

The strawman argument is a favorite tactic of Ham and his ilk.  Making an argument out to be something it is not.  Another is re-defining words that have specific (scientific) meaning, to mean something else (ie theory).  This is part of Ham's strange belief that there are two sciences, historical and observational.

Now, secularists often misuse the word science when they use it to refer to their molecules-to-man evolution belief, and then also misapply it to refer to technology, which is operational science (observation and repeatable testing). There’s a big difference between knowledge about the past (origins beliefs) and knowledge for building technology! You can’t observe, test, or repeat the past, so historical (or origins) science isn’t the same thing as observational science that can be directly observed, tested, and repeated in the present.
,,,
Secularists need to admit their faulty beliefs. But they don’t want to acknowledge they have any beliefs! They believe life somehow arose by natural processes, and they also believe in an unobservable process of molecules-to-man evolution. Secularists have a religion. They have beliefs about how the universe and life arose, and these beliefs affect how they interpret evidence in the present.

As Dan Arel notes,

It’s funny to me that Ham insists on using religion as an insult, but that aside, science isn’t a belief. We can observe evolution, even his so-called “molecule-to-man” evolution. We have observed new species of finch, and we can replicate evolution in the lab for many species of insect.

This is again, something Ham knows. All of the natural processes involved in natural selection are observable and testable. Fossils, DNA, and other evidence confirm this.

We don’t believe in evolution, as Ham implies, but instead, we accept the evidence.

Remember, Darwin does not speak to abiogenesis.  The current synthesis of evolutionary theory does not speak to abiogenesis.  Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.  As I have noted before, "natural selection is a measurement 'across a population and through generations'. If a creationist someone starts talking about natural selection being random and pointing out individual responses to the environment, then we might not be talking about the same evolutionary mechanism anymore. Everything that happens within evolution is happening to populations. Individuals do not evolve."  [See::  “Is natural selection random?”]