"The empirical observation that nature has, over three billion years, developed survival strategies..." (Pich, et al, "On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management" Management Science v. 48, n. 8 Aug 2002 pp 1008-1023).
This is, of course, the mainstream view. But there is no 'empirical observation' about nature developing survival strategies, let alone over 'three billion years'. This is merely a statement that assumes the truth of the rhetoric of evolution. But, to be fair, this is the sort of thing that one reads in even biological literature, where what is imagined, hoped, supposed, surmised or simply fabricated is considered to be empirically established because all alternative explanations are ruled out axiomatically. Rationally, how could anyone 'observe' something that supposedly took three billion years, when even R. Dawkins stated that one couldn't see evolution happening, becuase it is too slow. Stephen Gould on the other hand considered that we couldn't see it happening because it was too fast!
Just recently, this blog on a critical view of evolution came to my notice.
And, speaking of empirical, just what do we see?
Genes are produced by adult organisms;
Offspring are very similar to parents;
Genes don't change very much, and what variability we do know about seems to be strictly confined to the level of genus or family (see the finches that got Darwin so worked up: still finches).
