Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality. Just like people were taught creationism to be an undisputed fact in the Christian world before that. But Darwin's theory didn't disprove creationism, it just posited a competing explanation of creation based on a different worldview (which it did not prove to be the case but presupposed).

All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.

Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary since that worldview can't give justification for knowledge, truth, meaning or any universal concepts as a whole.

The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?

Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality. Just like people were taught creationism to be an undisputed fact in the Christian world before that. But Darwin's theory didn't disprove creationism, it just posited a competing explanation of creation based on a different worldview (which it did not prove to be the case but presupposed).

All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.

Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary.

The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?

Me believing in something or not doesn't pertain to the question. I've demonstrated the Darwinian theory of macro evolution is not a theory according to the rigorous standards applied to the term in scientific context. You're not taught "Darwin's and other biologist's best guess on the origin of life and species" in school. No, you're taught the evolutionary theory as an objective fact of nature and of reality.

All evidence is theory-laden. There are no brute facts which are not subject to interpretation. The reason why you and others believe evo theory best describes the world around us is because you presuppose a certain worldview to be correct - that of naturalism and materialism. There are other worldviews that hold a different explanation for the origin of the world and life like Christianity and its account of creation.

Asking to disprove a proposition after I've accepted the worldview assumptions that led to it is called internal critique. There are many such critiques on the inconsistencies of the evo theory from there and those could lead to scientists refining it or discarding it for another one (this would take what science philosopher Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift). But I won't even go there - I'd argue the assumptions evo theory is based on are irrational and arbitrary.

The "consensus" doesn't tell me if a proposition is true or false, it's an appeal to majority and authority. Should I get into what the scientific consensus is on climate change and the coof?