what?
The philosophy of something being either true or untrue, fact or unidentified.
This woman is using the most basic techniques of logic to provide counter-evidence.
An aside to basic reason: Conclusions are statements that cannot stand independently, and must rely on premises to serve as conclusions. Premises are facts, evidences or statistics that can stand independently on their own.
Much of evolutionary theory is conclusion after conclusion that is assumed to be true or factual, without a necessary amount of premises to support it. There are no human "eyewitness accounts" that lend support independently to evolutionary theory as a whole. The woman in the video often scrutinizes time periods. Darwin was intellectually respectable in acknowledging that many of his thoughts were mere hypotheses. With all the knowledge we have today, Darwin, whose religious status was disputed, would be very unlikely to acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as "solid and scientific" and would be more likely to recognize it as some "discourtesy or disgrace to the name of science."
I personally prefer to side along the terms of "We don't know enough to conclude properly" when concerning evolution and religion. As a devout Christian, I do not reject the whole idea of science or evolution. I only reject logical holes found within any system. As it is a jury's job to scrutinize a court case, so it is our job as audiences to new ideas to scrutinize scientific or unscientific ideas. Am I saying that through rejecting ideas we must accept the alternative? Far from it—only that there should be no "truth of origins" woven into science– it's too volitile of a subject sometimes to even evoke premises.
