Let us do a few necessary/inevitable logical deductions from the typical claims of a Darwinist like Ken Weiss and others and see where they may lead us. Ken Weiss: “Any rule an evolutionary biologist can come up with, nature can break.”
The rules/hypotheses of Darwinists include a few like the following:
1. The very rule itself that ‘any rule an evolutionary biologist can come up with, nature can break.”
2. Variations are random/chance.
3. There is no God doing any selection. There is no artificial/mind selection and only natural selection, at least before the appearance of human mind.
The following are the exceptions to each of the above. They must be true if Darwinists are right that “any rule an evolutionary biologist can come up with, nature can break”:
1. There is such a rule that has no exceptions.
2. Some variations are due to intention or not random.
3. There is a God doing artificial selection during evolution.
These logical exercises are meant to illustrate the absurdity of the position of no absolute truth/certainty/rule in evolution. It is a self defeating position and a double edged sword. Darwinists cannot escape self-destruction when they use it for self-defence of their contradiction-laden theory.
A person caring only about the disinterested search for truth can only have one possible position. There must be a law of evolution that has no exceptions. Nothing can break it. Not accidents, not mother nature, and not God.
"Only a disinterested search can result in Truth, for every form of self-interest will lead only to a creation which will serve that self-interest." by N. Sri Ram