Original sentence: According to Johnson, this distinction opens the possibility of natural science and Creationism being non-contradictory.Further evidence of the universal ancestry of life is that abiogenesis has never been observed under controlled conditions, indicating that the origin of life from non-life, is either very rare or only happens under conditions that are not at all like those of modern earth.In response these authors would claim that scientists are enforcing their territory and are unwilling to entertain a more radical thesis.In this way, macroevolution is testable and falsifiable.It's known from observation that this is a rare process, especially considering that most organisms become food for other organisms.Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, who argues that the entire issue of biological origins has been framed in terms of Naturalism, and that natural science per se is not identical with Naturalism.Many scientific criticisms of such proofs accuse the authors of deliberate fraud
Edited sentence: Cal Berkeley, who argues that the entire issue of biological origins has been framed in terms of Naturalism, and that natural science per se is not identical with Naturalism.Further evidence of the universal ancestry of life is that abiogenesis has never been observed under controlled conditions, indicating that the origin of life from non-life, if in fact due to natural causes, is either very rare or only happens under conditions that are not at all like those of modern earth.In this way, macroevolution is supposed to be testable and falsifiable.It's known from observation that this is a rare process, with the exception of episodes of geologic catastrophe, especially considering that most organisms become food for other organisms.Johnson, Professor of Law at U.Many scientific criticisms of such proofs accuse the authors of deliberate fraud, but that can be perceived as due more to territoriality, taking offense that someone outside the mainstream of the discipline should posit a radical thesis, rather than disputing the integrity of the authors in question.This distinction opens the possibility of natural science and Creationism being non-contradictory