Why is such slight evidence (as the peppered moth) seen as proof of macro-evolution by many Darwinists?
Even such slight evidence (as the peppered moth example) is more than sufficient (for Atheists and Darwinists), because evidence is not really necessary to prove something that is practically self-evident (if Atheism were true). The existence of a potent blind watchmaker follows deductively from the essentially atheistic philosophical premise that nature had to do its own creating. There can be argument about the details, but if God was not in the picture something very much like Darwinism simply has to be true, regardless of the evidence.
