I believe that you were the one that implied that anything non-Darwinian was not science. All I meant was that I see nothing unscientific or non-Darwinian in the two quotes. Like I said, we've been looking at this in my workplace for two decades. It's old news.
(I caught your Darwininian pun by the way. Very clever.)
Let us go over this carefully
You made this general statement about believers---By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.
You can see how I understood what you were saying in my reply ---Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one
You can see I interpret your general statement against believers as coming about due to their rejection of Darwinian concepts not their rejection of science. It would be you that equates the two.
Each and every reponse from you after that included ---I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.
In his commentary "The Third Way", Shapiro most definitely addressed concerns about Darwinian beliefs and demeanor in the debate. I repeat my statement. I believe that you consider any concern about or attack on Darwinian concepts as non-science.