[mikeus_maximus]

When you find someone that can not only "understand the science", but articlate the mechanism for creating new species rather than simple variations around the genetic mean, let us know. Then we'll point out another Drawinist who takes the exact opposite view.

The theory of macroevolution is itself constantly evolving in conflicting directions, often at the same time. Some call it science, but many honest people better credentialled than you or I call it something else.

[GodGunsGuts]

p. 274
“Ruse is a philosopher who wants to use history as a means of assessing the theory’s status as scientific knowledge. He asks why so many (and not just the creationists) remain skeptical of the theory’s scientific credentials. The answer, he argues, is that evolutionism has always been linked to a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress.”

—Bowler, Peter J., “The Status of Evolutionism Examined,” review of Monad to Man by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1996, 596 pp.), American Scientist, vol. 85 (May/June 1997), pp. 274-275. Bowler is on the faculty in History and Philosophy of Science, The Queen’s University, Belfast.

[RightWhale]

many honest people better credentialled than you or I

Say wha? They don't believe anybody less than a Doctor of Something is sentient, if they were honest about it.