darned if I can figure out what he's talking about. Sounds like college is wasted on him. Scientists all understand the theory of evolution and have demonstrated it in action over and over and over and over.
The only ones I know who dispute evolution are religious people; and their ideas ain't science.
Well evolutionary theory is foundational to the science of biology. You really can't understand biology as a science unless you comprehend the theory of biological evolution. Most don't. They confuse biological evolution with the origins of life and human origins. Or you have others with religious convictions who are offended by one of evolutionary theories factual aspects, common descent who try to make artificial distinctions about evolutionary theory that technically don't exist. The macro/micro evolution argument they make is a perfect example. Biologist really don't make such a distinction. According to evolutionary theory all this is required for macroevolution to occur is microevolution and lots of time, so that particular distinction creationist try to attack in really meaningless.
I actually would find creationist arguments pretty damned funny and would disregard them as the utter waste of time that they are if it wasn't for the scientific illiteracy of the American public and the impact that they have on public policy in regards to science education.
Besides from that, of what use is creationism to me as a biologist? It has no practical value. I can make no testable prediction using it, therefore it has no value in terms of practical application. From a reasoning standpoint the reasoning behind creationism is based on the argument from authority logical fallacy. In short, I can do no productive scientific work using creationism.
Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is profoundly useful. A large number of useful predictions have been made using this theory for a long, long time now and it has stood scrutiny for over 150 years. In fact, virtually all the applied branches of biology are applied evolutionary theory. So at the end of the day PMP can make all the arguments he wants to that there is no evidence for macro-evolution.
However, there are predictions made very frequently based on large scale evolution, above the species level, that are independently reproduced and verified very often. It's this practical usefulness that really makes a hash of the argument that there is no evidence for macro-evolution cause there is and has been or else biologist wouldn't be able to apply the theory in practical application yet that is done on a very regular basis by biologist.
So in that respect I find PMP's argument silly because his opinion has no practical use to me as a biologist where as evolutionary theory, even above the species level, is applied all the time by biologist. Which means from a scientific and pedagogical standpoint creationism and Intelligent Design are an utter waste of time in that no one uses them. They have no application at all, which means from a scientific standpoint, their utterly useless concepts.
Now outside the narrow confines of science that may not be true but within the realm of science, it most certainly is.
