schaef21:"This is obviously garbage. Many secular scientists are casting doubts and asking questions. Google David Berlinski (just one example), who has no religious ax to grind and see what he says.
On your David Berlinski", here's what Eugenie Scott says about him:
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski's arguments in The Deniable Darwin as:[11]
". . . The content of David Berlinski's article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, though his tone is more genteel and his writing a lot more literate. . . .
"But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully se-lected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . ."
As for "casting doubts and asking questions," I'd say that's what scientists are supposed to do -- it's the beginning of the scientific method. Next they design experiments intended to answer their scientific questions. So, what experiments do you suppose Berliner has conducted?
****Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski’s arguments in The Deniable Darwin as:[11]****
I could really care less what Eugenie Scott says. She’s going to trash anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy.
****As for “casting doubts and asking questions,” I’d say that’s what scientists are supposed to do — it’s the beginning of the scientific method.****
Ah yes....the scientific method. I believe I just posted something to you about that.....observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. How is it again that the “pond-scum to people” theory can be observed...or tested...or repeated...or falsified.
Let me know when you figure it out will ya please?