National Academy of Science account of evolution flawed?

PUBLISHER:

redshirt

Shaun Johnston:
In modern times we've made two revolutionary discoveries. One is, how changes in physical matter can be accounted for in terms of physical laws that can predict precisely what will happen next. Having given rise to science (how this can be studied) and industry (how it can be applied) this revolution is well under way.

The second revolution is, how emergence of species of living creatures can be accounted for in terms of them evolving from one another. This revolution, despite its promise of how much it could tell us about ourselves, remains stillborn through the mistaken application to it of principles coming out of the first revolution--reductive physicalism.

For this second revolution to advance it should be taken from under the wing of science and studied on its own terms. Tip: one recent product of evolution is creatures with minds. Minds are better studied through methods of the humanities than through those of science. Tell me, does this interest you?

Details: Written by Shaun Johnston Shaun Johnston; Published: April 5, 2012 April 5, 2012; Hits: 3291 3291

Shouldn't teachers and the general public be able to depend on the National Academy of Science's "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" for an authoritative account of the mechanism of evolution? Could it contain a serious omission, even a logical flaw that invalidates the entire basis of the modern synthesis?

Of course it couldn't. I must be wrong. But I can't see where. Can you point my error out to me? Check out my argument here.