[AntiGuv]

No, it's evidence that if you go around insulting creationists, you are slinging crap at some pretty impressive scientists.

Well, one thing I would point out is that for many of these scientists there is little evidence that they were "creationists" as the term is commonly applied today. In modern parlance, "creationism" means literalism - someone who believes the Bible is literally true verbatim, with a typical fetish for Genesis in particular. The fact that some historical scientist mentioned the Creator in some context (which is usually all it amounts to with these citations) hardly means that they believed the Bible to be literal history, or that they would have persisted in that belief following familiarization with natural selection theory.

[ovrtaxt]

Point taken.

However, the fact that many scientists take Darwin for a kook shouldn't call into question their intelligence or commitment to the scientific process. It's as if Darwin's theories are some sort of litmus test.

And since there's plenty of evidence to back up various theories of natural history, these crevo debates are silly. I rarely post on these threads because everyone seems to have made up their mind already.