In genetics, we deal a lot with probability. For instance, in something like the O.J. Simpson trial, you say , OK, there is one chance out of one billion that somebody didn t do such and such. Because it s such a small chance, you reject it. But calculating the chance of just a small part of the genetic machinery arising by randomness, it s much, much less than that. You have a Ph.D. in genetics, working at evolution-based secular universities.
Some people say that evolution holds science together, and it s the whole fabric of science.
I could easily take away the evolution part of my study without losing any really important stuff from the scientific point of view. I would lose nothing, and would be left with real, observable facts, real science. I agree completely. Most of the time, evolution will inhibit the study of real science. People begin with something they want to reinforce continually, namely evolution, and so all observations on the cell, for example, will be squashed into serving this end.