Creation research sounds like researching creation to me. Disproving evolution isn't inherently creationist, but that site is so that's why I brought it up. Regardless, if evolution is to be disproved, I think it might be more likely for it to be disproved by people who understand and research evolution, not by (painfully obviously biased) organizations that make laughably false statements like
Quote:
|
Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
|
Quote:
|
No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial
|
That's before we even get into the false analogy of the 200 part system that they mention. These people are not experts (in evolution). They're either charlatans, reactionaries, incredibly naive, or stupid. Be a little skeptical of the sources you use, especially when they're "skeptical" sources, since many have taken up the term when they should be calling themselves "denialist."