Hey SeekAndFind. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree from a somewhat prestigious and secular New England college and I think Darwinism is positively satanic.

Plus, I think it is really great that there are people out there like Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova who are trying to preserve the integrity of the Biblical Record.

Is it really true that even some Darwinian scientists are saying now that life began not from a single primordial cell, but many?

I wonder what percentage of the people who Did Not graduate or go to college believe in creation?

I wonder if there are any cross-tabs for this survey.

The newsweek polls are suggestive of TE’s being a driving power behind Darwinism, but not quite explicitly. It would be a worthy study to see how many instrumental Darwinists were theists.

I would argue though, that if Darwin’s theory were true, I think I would have less reason to believe, personally speaking. If my situation is similar to many, then TE’s have arguably done a lot to promote an unscientific idea which has eroded many people’s faith.

The irony is that Tipler [a provisional atheist inclined toward God's existence] is given the cold shoulder by Howard van Til. van Til was previously someone who professed Reformed Christian Theology at Calvin College.

Van Til straying from the faith was mentioned by Dembski Howard Van Till’s journey from Calvinism into freethought

What was van Til’s reason for rejecting Tipler’s work? Here is Tipler’s account:

I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place on “peer reviewed”
or “refereed” journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my book The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas it presented had never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had already appeared in refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared were listed at the beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the Higgs boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed science journal in the world. But suppose Van Till had been correct and that my ideas had never been published in referred journals. Would he have been correct in saying that, in this case, the ideas need not be taken seriously?