Plus I’m not the only one to use this computer.

However, as you are a creationist and creationism has been rejected by 99.9% of the scientific establishment on the basis of the evidence,

What evidence?

IOW what evidence demonstrates that a population of bacteria can “evolve” into something other than bacteria?

Is it experimental data or speculation based on the assumption?

All the evidence we have demonstrates that life begets life. And organisms reproduce organisms that are like the parent(s).

So again I ask, what evidence?

As a thought experiment do you think that those people you mention would have been able to enjoy the same sucess if they had been openly atheist?

They had a choice and choose the obvious- that sheer dumb luck is NOT a viable alternative.

Ya see I say these guys were like they were BECAUSE of the data.

And had Charles Darwin been aware of the workings of a cell he would not have proposed his “theory”.

The point is rather that I don’t recall seeing “god” in any of Newtons equations.

Youy wouldn’t. Ya see it is as I said- they were uncovering “God’s” handy-work.

Do archaeologists have (place designer here) in their equations? No.

IOW it appears you do not know what you are talking about.

Is it your contention that theistic scientists produce better results then atheist scientists?

What results have atheistic scientists made in the name of undirected processes?

Can atheistic scientists even put undirected processes in a testable hypothesis?

Also I see biologists and philosop[hers switching to ID or Creation. Yet I have not seen the opposite.

Why is that?

However, as you are a creationist and creationism has been rejected by 99.9% of the scientific establishment on the basis of the evidence,

1)Are you conflating ID with creationism? Quaint but getting old since everyone in ID knows it aint so.

2) That’s a crock statement if ever I heard one. Based on evidence?
What evidence? Evidence that the universe didn’t have a beginning? Evidence that life arose spontaneously? Evidence of what?

We all know how IDists and creationists or anyone even suggesting that Darwinism has problems gets treated – both in academia and in the work field.

So you’re 99.9% figure is obviously not only wrong but I suspect you made it up on the spot to add the illusion of support to your statements.

You’re not paying attention to whats going on at all and you don’t understand the issues or the evidence.

…counterproductive to imply that the sucess of “Darwinism” is down to lies and misrepresentations rather then simply having the weight of evidence on their side?

Not counter productive. Just the facts. Darwin himself played the hypocrite by deliberately concealing his true materialism. Many of Darwins contemporaries did the same and actually planned on getting rid of religion in society by the use of his theory.

A visit to TO and other hard line Darwinist sites reveals a clear tendency to downplay or blatantly omit data that demonstrates anything contrary to Darwinism and to exaggerate anything that seems to support it.

You’re barking up the wrong tree here and perhaps you should get your facts straight instead of swallowing the Darwinist party line hook line and sinker.

@11
“Evolution is not controversial. It’s accepted by almost all scientists.”

@12
“As a thought experiment do you think that [Galilieo, Newton, Kepler etc.] would have been able to enjoy the same sucess if they had been openly atheist?…

As society at the time (of all the people you mention)was theistic then it’s logical that people would go with the flow.”

So Mike’s point, if I understand him correctly, is that the large majority of the great scientists of history who were openly theistic were in fact closet atheists who only pretended theisim to protect their careers; and yet that an even larger majority of contemporary scientists (whose achievemements look distinctly sparse by comparison) who are openly Darwinists are the genuine article, convinced by the sheer weight of evidence, so that the baleful career consequences of failing to hold the line count for nothing with them.

This obviously isn’t true, as the Expelled movie made clear enough, and anyone who did a science degree in a university that had a Christian Union would certainly know (at my university in Manchester, England, scientists strongly outnumbered non-science students in the CU). The sad thing is that so many of these people end up having to hold their peace for the sake of their jobs. I sidestepped the issue by escaping into industry at an early stage (straight after my PhD), but for people in academia this remains a real problem.

Evolution is not controversial. It’s accepted by almost all scientists. You know this.

Not controversial? If it wasn’t controversial we wouldn’t even have websites like this trying to suggest that neo-Darwinism is faulty. Besides, is it microevolution or macroevolution that is accepted by most scientists? Even IDists will acknowledge microevolution, variation within animals (such as the changes that have occurred within the species of dogs), but that’s because we actually have solid observable evidence of this. Unfortunately, for neo-Darwinists that’s as far as it goes. No macroevolution has ever been witnessed (such as a species of lizard evolving into a bird over time). In fact all studies have shown that genetic information is shuffled or lost due to genetic mutations (the very mutations assumed to create macroevolution). Yet neo-Darwinian theory requires NEW genetic information.

To quote two scientists themselves:

“Mutations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’ … No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution [that is, macroevolution].” –Past president of the French Academy of Sciences Pierre-Paul Grasse

“Natural selection does not provide any new genetic information. And for evolution we need new genetic information. Darwin assumed that the increase in information comes from natural selection. But natural selection reduces genetic information, and we know this from all the genetic studies we have done. Generally we are [also] afraid of mutations … So we are avoiding mutations because we know that mutations spoil. We do not know of any mutation that is positive. We have never observed a change, a genetic change by mutation, that has produced something new [that is, new genetic information] and positive.” – Maciej Giertych, population geneticist

On another note: neo-Darwinists often pull a lot of bait-and-swaps (suggesting that microevolution is equivalent to macroevolution) and then say that it supports their theory. Even if I grant that it’s true that the large majority of scientists support the entire idea of neo-Darwinism (microevolution AND macroevolution) it’s not because the data supports it. It’s because they won’t give it up, or they were prior brainwashed by one-sided just-so stories of neo-Darwinism.

If scientists honestly followed the evidence wherever it leads neo-Darwinism would have been dropped a long time ago. Only intelligence provides true complex specified information such as languages and codes.

Funny I saw a different interpretation of history. For example, in his book

“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”

Thomas Woods makes a case that Catholics and the Catholic Church was central to a good part of the development of modern science and in particular cites the works of many Jesuits.

I think there is room for a lot of religious people in the development of science.

Please don’t anyone bring up Galileo. The conventional wisdom about what happened with him has been debunked a long time ago on this site.

Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream

Who is the cult here? On the one hand you have the goverment, which via the instrument of law and trial (as the option of “settled science” is apparently not satisfactory) attempts to “know what is best for your kid” by the use of experts arguing their case. The case that is best supported is used.

Note, by the way, how readily Darwinists abandon the idea that the kid’s genetic relatives would know what is best for him.

Most child murders are performed by blood relatives.
I totally agree with Andrew when he says

Evolution needs challenging on logical grounds, for the sake of science, and should not be accepted on the basis of blind trust.

Likewise the challenges to “darwinism” cannot be accepted to be true on blind trust. They must be supported with facts and evidence.

Note, by the way, how readily Darwinists abandon the idea that the kid’s genetic relatives would know what is best for him.

Presumably you are talking here about parents removing children from classes they find offensive, such as evolution and talk about man being related to apes etc.

These same parents are also unlikely to understand the underpinnings of much else their children are being taught in many other fields.

Why is teaching children about electromagnetism not seen as cultish behaviour by you or them then?

Anyone who does not see what that so often means [= we cultists know what is best for your kid but you don't] has no one else to thank if the kid is starved or beaten to death or brainwashed into a cult.

Note, by the way, how readily Darwinists abandon the idea that the kid’s genetic relatives would know what is best for him.

When Dan Dennett talked about quarantining parents who prevent their children from properly learning evolution, he wasn’t kidding. A free society demands that we be quarantined!

This intrigued me and I looked into it further. I found the following quote:

We should not expect this variety of respect to be satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with our attentive – but not worshipful – scholarship. On the contrary, many of them will view anything other than enthusiastic conversion to their own views as a threat, even an intolerable threat. We must not underestimate the suffering such confrontations cause. To watch, to have to participate in, the contraction or evaporation of beloved feature of one’s heritage is a pain only our species can experience, and surely few pains could be more terrible. But we have no reasonable alternative, and those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage, trying always to leave open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable.

and

If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God’s rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods – that the earth is flat, that “Man” is not a product of evolution by natural selection – then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being – the well-being of all of us on the planet – depends upon the education of our descendants.

I don’t believe you reading is the same as mine. Nobody is being locked away. Nobody is being “quarantined” in the strict sense that you seem to imply.