But the larger problem with disproving evolution is twofold. First, it’s definition is so plastic that there really is no meaningful set of conditions that evolutionists would accept as falsifying it, in part because, like faith in the Bible, it is assumed true, and those defending it just look for harmonizations of the data, never considering falsification. Lack of intermediate forms? “Not enough data” or “punctuated equilibrium.” Lack of experimental evidence? “It takes too long to observe.” Genetic trees don’t match those based on morphology? “Convergent evolution.”

Second, the truth is, there are only two models for origins – one where all starts out as soup and by some law organizes into higher physical and living complexity and forms, and another where things start out organized by an intelligent designer and progress via thermodynamics and entropy towards disorder (which looks more like reality? Dawkins confession of “the appearance of design” looks very naive). Being without faith in the latter model, unbelievers MUST believe some form of evolution. So they won’t seriously consider any contrary evidence as falsification, just another chance to “improve the model.”