There is no proof for evolution, there is only the appearance of a proof. I find it extremely interesting, for example, that Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils that produce actual soft tissue remnants could possibly be 60 160 million years old. The idea is utterly preposterous given the timelines of evolution but there you have it: soft tissue has indeed been found in the thigh bones of T-Rex. I could care less whether the world is 5 billion years old or 300,000 years old but I do think that any scientist worth his or her salt would question the common timelines of evolution with the discovery of soft tissue in T-Rex bones. Have you heard a peep in this direction? Of course not.
Epistemology relates to the science of knowledge, specifically how you know anything. Modern day evolutionists embrace a radical uncertainty principle when it comes to morality but when it comes to their beliefs, there is no uncertainty whatsoever. The religion of evolution is NEVER to be questioned. If we know anything, we know that soft tissue cannot possibly survive the timelines indicated by evolution. The timelines may have to be re-thought based on the kind of hard evidence that is now being discovered in fossils previously found and shelved, but don’t expect it to come from the pro-evolution crowd, which can’t stand any evidence to the contrary when it comes to their religion. And what is their religion?-- the most magnificent fairy tale every concocted: that everything in the universe happened accidentally–that there is no organizing principle in a universe that is obviously highly organized.
Life operates in actual opposition to the laws of thermodynamics. It winds things up and nobody, absolutely nobody can figure out why. Life and the principles of life seem to have escaped the academic boneheads who ignore the most astonishing thing of all–that they don’t know how life really works, that they don’t know where the energy of life comes from and they have no idea as to why the cellular mechanisms that control the appearances of life cannot be manipulated to produce life in a test tube. No scientist has ever created life from scratch because what it is conveniently ignored is that to manipulate life is not to create it. They are looking in the wrong places. They are like savages examining a television set who try to reach into the screen to extract the images by hand. Without a concept of broadcast and reception, scientists keep playing with the receiver, like hottentots, never looking for or conceiving of a broadcast mechanism. Perhaps a Farside cartoon is in order.